Preamble

The House met at Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Blackpool Improvement Bill,

Croydon Corporation Bill,

Harrogate Corporation Bill,

London Passenger Transport Board Bill,

Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.

Gelligaer Urban District Council Bill [Lords],

Port of London Bill [Lords],

Read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

Stoke-on-Trent Corporation Bill [Lords] (King's Consent signified),

Bill read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

Hertfordshire County Council Bill [Lords],

As amended, considered.

Motion made, "That Standing Orders 240 and 262 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the Third time."—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

King's consent signified; Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

Weymouth Waterworks Bill [Lords],

As amended, considered.

Motion made, "That Standing Orders 240 and 262 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the Third time."—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

King's Consent signified; Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

Ayr County Council (General Powers) Order Confirmation Bill [Lords],

Leith Harbour and Docks Consolidation Order Confirmation Bill [Lords],

Considered; to be read the Third time upon Monday next.

Ayr Burgh Extension, Etc., Order Confirmation Bill,

Kilmarnock Burgh Extension, Etc., Order Confirmation Bill,

Troon Burgh Extension, Etc., Order Confirmation Bill,

Read a Second time; and ordered to be considered upon Monday next.

Orders of the Day — HOUSING BILL.

Order for Consideration for Lords Amendments read.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered," put, and agreed to.—[Sir K. Wood.]

Lords Amendments considered accordingly.

CLAUSE 3.—(Offences in relation to overcrowding.)

Lords Amendment: In page 4, line 3, leave out "normally reside" and insert "live."

11.7 a.m.

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment carries out a promise which was given on the Report stage of the Bill in this House to consider the use of the words "normally reside" with a view to making the language of the Clause which elsewhere uses the word "live," consistent. We have given consideration to the matter and we think it would be better to have the word "live" at this point in the Bill where it will carry the same meaning as the existing words and will be consistent with other parts of the Bill.

Question put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 4.—(Power of Minister to increase the permitted number temporarily to meet exceptional conditions.)

Lords Amendment in page 4, line 30, agreed to.

Lords Amendment in page 5, line 7, after "Committee" insert "and the local authority."

Sir K. WOOD: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment has been introduced because, before varying or revoking any Order modifying the overcrowding standard, it is desirable that the Minister should consult the local authority concerned.

Question put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 5.—(Potter of local authority to authorise the temporary use of a house by persons in excess of the permitted number.)

Lords Amendment in page 5, line 13, agreed to.

CLAUSE 6.—(Entries in rent books, information and certificates with respect to the permitted number.)

Lords Amendment: In page 7, line 1, after "and" insert:
The regulations may provide for the exclusion from computation, or for the bringing into computation at a reduced figure, of floor space in any part of a room which is of less than a specified height. (5)

11.10 a.m.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Shakespeare): I propose to ask the House to agree with the Lords in this Amendment.
The House will remember that this Clause gave power to the Minister to deal with the special case of a room with a sloping ceiling. It was intended that the Minister could, by regulation, deal with such rooms in such a way as not to count in the floor space below a ceiling of less than a certain height. We were not sure that the drafting of the Clause made the intention plain, and this Amendment will give power to make regulations, excluding from the calculation, the floor space below a ceiling which is of less than a specified height.

11.12 a.m.

Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, after "height," to insert "not exceeding eight feet."
I think the reason for this Lords Amendment is obvious. It is desirable that where there is a roof which slopes down practically to nothing at all, or at any rate to something not very high, the full area of the room should not be taken into account. On the other hand, to put it that the ceiling must be of "a specified height" might lead to a complete change in the whole meaning of the Measure. Somebody might,, for example, prescribe a minimum height of 12 feet which would knock out of account a vast number of rooms. In order that this power should be limited I think we ought
to include the words "not exceeding eight feet," which, I think, is a satisfactory figure.

Mr. MICHAEL BEAUMONT: I beg to second the Amendment to the Lords Amendment.

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: This is an entirely reasonable Amendment. It was never our intention to make regulations as regards rooms with ceilings of more than eight feet in height. The Amendment does not change our purpose at all and we accept it.

11.14 a.m.

Mr. G. R. STRAUSS: I feel very sorry that any limitation is going to be imposed by Statute in connection with this matter. I suggested during the Committee stage and also on the Report stage of the Bill, that there should be some provision to take into account the height as well as the floor area of rooms. I was assured on those occasions that the Minister would do so in the regulations and that there was no need to put anything into the Bill concerning that point. I was doubtful whether the Minister had the necessary power. Since the Report stage, apparently the Ministry of Health have seen the light and they are accepting the Amendment which was made in another place and I am very glad they have done so. I think the Ministry will be making a very considerable mistake if they limit themselves by inserting "not exceeding eight feet." In the Bill there has been very much too much limitation by way of the insertion

of figures which would be much better settled by the Ministry in the course of administration. We have objected throughout to putting definite standards in the Bill, and I see no reason why the Minister should accept this Amendment when it is possible in the course of a year or two that new matters may come to light and new considerations arise which may make him of the opinion that the eight feet limitation is unreasonable. I think it is a very great pity that the Minister should now agree to limit himself in this way, and I hope he will change his mind.

Mr. TINKER: Do I take it that the ordinary height of a roof is 10 feet, and that when it slopes and its slope gets beyond eight feet, that could be excluded?

11.17 a.m.

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: That is the meaning of the Amendment. We shall have power, with this Amendment in, to deal with rooms which are less than eight feet high and have sloping roofs. With regard to the point made by the hon. Member for North Lambeth (Mr. G. R. Strauss), the Government have always felt that it is better not to bring in the complication of cubic capacity, but that if it did happen that a room was unfit for habitation by virtue of a low ceiling, the best plan would be to deal with it under Clause 80 and perhaps close it altogether.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Lords Amendment."

The House divided: Ayes, 60; Noes, 31.

Division No. 299.]
AYES.
[11.17 a.m.


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)
Fuller, Captain A. G.
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilst'n)


Apsley, Lord
Ganzoni, Sir John
Ralkes, Henry V. A. M.


Aske, Sir Robert William
Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Rickards, George William


Barclay-Harvey. C. M.
Hartland, George A.
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y)
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univ.)
Somervell, Sir Donald


Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Levy, Thomas
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Clayton, Sir Christopher
McLean, Major Sir Alan
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.


Cook, Thomas A.
Macquisten, Frederick Alexander
Tate, Mavis Constance


Cooke, Douglas
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Cooper, T. M. (Edinburgh, W.)
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Copeland, Ida
Mellor, Sir J. S. P.
Watt, Major George Steven H.


Crooke, J. Smedley
Munro, Patrick
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon. S.)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Hertf'd)


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley


Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter
Orr Ewing, I. L.



Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Percy, Lord Eustace
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Fremantle, Sir Francis
Petherick, M.
Sir Walter Womersley and Lieut.-




Colonel Llewellin.


NOES.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. Clement R.
Gardner, Benjamin Walter
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot


Banfield, John William
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Maxton, James


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Parkinson, John Allen


Buchanan, George
Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W. Riding)
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Grundy, Thomas W.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, North)


Daggar, George
Harris, Sir Percy
Thorne, William James


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Jenkins, Sir William
Tinker, John Joseph


Dobbie, William
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Edwards, Sir Charles
Lawson, John James
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Evans, H. T. (Carmarthen)
Lunn, William



Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. John and Mr. Paling.


Lords Amendment agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment to page 7, line 11, agreed to.

CLAUSE 10.—(Enforcement of foregoing provisions.)

Lords Amendment: In page 8, line 15, after "house" insert:
is in the occupation of the person upon whom the notice was served or of a member of his family and".

11.26 a.m.

Sir K. WOOD: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is in the nature of a drafting Amendment. The Clause deals with the circumstances of one particular occupier and his family, but as it is drafted without this Amendment it would allow a local authority who had served notice on occupier A to take proceedings against another occupier B who had come into occupation within the three months mentioned in the clause, and who had not therefore been served with a notice at all.

Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 8, line 18, agreed to.

CLAUSE 12.—(Definitions for purposes of provisions relating to overcrowding.)

Lords Amendment: In page 9, line 37, leave out from "dwelling-house" to end of Clause and insert:
as to which the following conditions are satisfied, that is to say—

(a) the house must be a house in which the occupier and his family can live without causing it to be overcrowded;
(b) the local authority must certify the house to be suitable to the needs of the occupier and his family as respects security of tenure and proximity to place of work and otherwise and to be suitable in relation to his means; and
2186
(c) if the house belongs to the local authority, they must certify it to be suitable as to the needs of the occupier and his family as respects extent of accommodation having regard to the standard specified in paragraph (ii) of section thirty-seven of the Act of 1930."

11.28 a.m.

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: I propose to ask the House to agree with the Lords in this Amendment. It puts in a new form of the definition of "suitable alternative accommodation" in Clause 12. There are only two slight changes. The House will see that paragraph (a) repeats what is in the original definition. Paragraph (b) adds the words "and otherwise" in order to make it possible for the local authority to take into account other factors than security of tenure and proximity to place of work. Paragraph (c) carries out the promise of the Government that where a local authority is rehousing it will adopt the standard of accommodation laid down in Section 37 of the 1930 Act.

11.29 a.m.

Mr. THORP: I beg to move, as an Amendment to, the Lords Amendment, to leave out "and otherwise."
I would like to ask for some explanation why these words were put in. If they are needed, should they not appear after the word "means" and not after "place of work"? The certificate to be given by the local authority is to cover the question of security of tenure suitable to the means of the family and otherwise. I imagine that any court of law which is construing the words "and otherwise" would construe them ejusdem generis with the words preceding. Therefore, the matters mentioned by the Parliamentary Secretary as being capable of being taken into consideration by the local authority very probably might not be taken into consideration, and they might not have power to take them into
consideration having regard to the words "and otherwise" being ejusdem generis with security of tenure and proximity to place of work. If that be the object, it will not, I think, be above all doubt that such matters as the Parliamentary Secretary has envisaged could possibly be taken into consideration, Three matters only are dealt with—security of tenure, proximity to place of work, and suitability to the means of the tenant. These are three specific questions. If we are to put on the words "and otherwise" the construction that the Parliamentary Secretary put on them, they will cover anything that the local authority likes to take into consideration. Therefore, these particular details are unnecessary. If, on the other hand, they are to cover only the matters referred to they are unnecessary. In the circumstances, I think that the words "and otherwise" put in there will land somebody into litigation. That is the one thing which is certain about it.

11.32 a.m.

Mr. CAPORN: I beg to second the Amendment to the Lords Amendment.
The Government are in this dilemma. Either the provision is so worded that we need not have this definition at all, and can just say that we leave it to the local authority in their absolute discretion, without giving any reasons, to say whether or not it is suitable accommodation. If it does not mean that, it has little or no effect at all. It does not appear to deal with points which I presume were intended to be covered by the Parliamentary Secretary when he said that this will allow the local authority to take other factors into account. He did not tell us what was the character of the factors which the Government wished the local authority to have power to take into account. This Parliament has gone a long way, even in the last four years' towards setting up bodies which are autocratic and have power to make legislation outside the control of this House and of the ordinary law courts. I submit that if it is to be suggested that the words "and otherwise" are to give absolute discretion to another body and to set it up as an autocratic, bureaucratic body to make its own laws and to enforce them, it is time this House put its foot down and put an end to it. On the other hand, if they do not, as I
believe, do anything of the kind, the words are useless and will only give rise to litigation, not merely in an odd case for the purpose of getting a test decision, but in every case there will be the possibility of litigation in which poor people will be concerned and which we ought to keep outside the scope of this Bill.

11.34 a.m.

Sir PERCY HARRIS: The mover of the Amendment failed to look at the problem from the point of view of persons who are to be moved from their accommodation, where perhaps they have been for many years and have become extremely attached to it, and only too often are to be very much inconvenienced by being shifted. It has been generally accepted in all housing legislation of recent years, for instance in the Rent Restriction Acts, that the State should not move a family from their home until it was able to put them into at least as good accommodation as that which they had been occupying. I am glad to hear that I have the support of the mover and the seconder of the Amendment. If we are to make the application of that principle as broad and wide as possible there will always be considerations over and above those met by the words of definition—short of the two additional words to which my hon. and learned Friend so strongly objects—which will have to be taken into account.
A great number of my constituents are, unfortunately, living in slums, in areas which ought to be improved off the face of the earth, living in dwellings which are a survival of the times of the old silk weavers in the East End of London 50 years ago. Those old weavers' rooms are large rooms and very convenient, in a way, for a family, but they are in houses which are worn out and ripe for clearance. It does not seem reasonable that the alternative accommodation offered to a family who have been living in those large rooms should take into account merely the number of rooms they have been occupying. If a family living in three of those large rooms were overcrowded, would it be fair to offer them three other rooms which would not provide sufficient accommodation for them? If this Measure is not to create hardship there must be great elasticity and very wide definition, because circumstances vary so much in different parts of the country. Conditions
in London are very different from those in the country and regulations which would suit the North of England or the Midlands would cause extreme hardship in London or the southern counties. Therefore, I think the Government ought to hold to these words, and not give way to the fear of giving work to the very hard-pressed legal profession, if it be right to do what is suggested. Let the lawyers have a little work in these times of black-coated unemployment. I do not think the fears of my hon. and learned Friend should frighten the Solicitor-General and the Minister of Health, and I hope they will not give way.

11.37 a.m.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I was hoping the hon. Baronet would have given us a better example. As far as I could make out he has only proved that Free Trade has in the last 50 years ruined his constituents. If he will read the Lords Amendment he will see that the house must be one which will not be overcrowded as the result of the change, that it must be suitable to the needs of the occupier and his family, that there must be security of tenure, that it must be in proximity to his place of work and, finally, must be suitable in relation to his means. I was hoping the hon. Baronet would give us an example of something not covered by those words which would be met by the words "and otherwise". What kind of case do they cover? What I am afraid of is that such words will lead to the kind of litigation which has arisen over the Rent Restrictions Acts and has caused considerable trouble to landlords and tenants alike. I do not want a continuance of that litigation, but an Amendment which is so clear that there is not likely to be litigation over it.

11.38 a.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Donald Somervell): The Mover of this Amendment first of all raised the point that in his view the words are in the wrong place in the Lords Amendment, but I think he is wrong about that. He will see that the words in their present position qualify the words "to the needs of the occupier," and it is those words which it is intended they should qualify. There is a break in the construction
there, because after the words "and otherwise" come the words "and to be suitable in relation to his needs"; but the widening of the Clause which it is intended to produce by the insertion of these words "and otherwise" is a widening in relation to the needs of the occupier. I think that the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) misread the Clause, because he seemed to think that, as drafted, it enabled the local authority first to take into account the needs of the occupier and his family, then security of tenure, and then proximity to his place of work. If that were the construction of the Clause I can quite see his reason for suggesting that the words "and otherwise" ought not to be inserted, but without the words "and otherwise" the only needs of the occupier which can be taken into account are security of tenure and proximity to his place of work.
My hon. and learned Friend was afraid that the ejusdem generis rule would limit the construction of these words, but I find it difficult to see how that can be so, because to apply the ejustem generis rule you have to find a genus in the preceding words, and the preceding words deal with security of tenure and proximity to place of work, two different factors. Therefore, I do not think it would be possible to cut down these words "and otherwise," by this rule so as to make them meaning less. What they do is to oblige the local authority to satisfy itself, generally, that the alternative accommodation is suitable having regard to the needs of the family. If the words are left out they are tied to the two factors alone and are unable to take into account other factors which it might be proper to take into account in individual cases. If there are no other factors the only factors which do arise are met in the Clause, but there may be other factors, and it is with the idea of seeing that people do get suitable accommodation that we recommend the House to keep the words in.

Amendment to Lords Amendment negatived.

Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 13, line 32, agreed to.

CLAUSE 15.—(Purchase of land for the purposes of re-development.)

Lords Amendment: In page 13, line 33, at the end, insert:
(6) When the Minister's approval of a re-development plan has become operative and the plan comprises any land of the local authority, the provisions of this Act shall apply in relation to that land as if it had been land in the re-development area purchased by the Authority under this section.

11.45 a.m.

Sir K. WOOD: I beg to move "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
The House may remember that the powers of a local authority to deal with property in a re-development area are expressly related to land in the area purchased by the authority. There will, however, often be cases where the redevelopment area contains property already belonging to the local authority, and unless the authority have the same powers in relation to land belonging to them as they have in relation to land they purchase, they will be hampered in carrying out the re-development. It is for that reason that this new subsection has been inserted.

CLAUSE 16.—(Application of certain provisions of the Acts of 1925 and of 1930 for purposes of re-development provisions.)

Lords Amendment: In page 13, line 34, at the beginning, insert:
(1) The provisions of section forty-one of the Act of 1925 (which relates to costs incurred in connection with certain orders) shall have effect in relation to a re-development plan and to a new plan and to the Minister's approval of any such plan and in relation to a compulsory purchase order made under the last foregoing section, as they have effect, in relation to the orders mentioned in the said section.

Mr. SPEAKER: This Amendment raises a question of Privilege.

Sir K. WOOD: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
Section 41 of the Act of 1925, enables the Minister to award costs to objectors who have appeared at public local inquiries and whose objections have later been sustained by the decision of the Minister on the Order. It is obviously
desirable that the Minister should have similar powers to award costs in the case of a person who successfully objects against a local authority's proposal in regard to re-development. This Amendment gives that power.

Mr. SPEAKER: A special entry will be made in the Journals of the House.
Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 21, line 30, agreed to.

CLAUSE 24.—(Central Housing Advisory Committee.)

Lords Amendment: In page 22, line 22, at the end, insert:
(d) considering the operation of the enactments relating to housing and making to the Minister such representations with respect to matters of general concern arising in connection with the execution of those enactments as the Committee think desirable.

11.48 a.m.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, at the beginning, to insert, "When requested by the Minister."
During the Committee stage of the Bill, we discussed whether the Central Housing Advisory Committee should be a body with a roving power, and with power to initiate matters in relation to housing. It was considered in some quarters that though they had power to advise the Minister they ought not to be busybodies wandering all over the place, but ought to confine themselves to their proper activities of giving advice to the Minister on matters upon which he needs advice. My impression is that the additional words have been inserted in another place in the interests of people who may be living in the hope that they will find themselves upon the Advisory Committee, when they could proceed to make themselves a nuisance to the Minister and to everybody else who might be unwise enough to appoint them. I very much hope that we shall not set up a roving commission of this kind.

Mr. LEVY: I beg to second the Amendment to the Lords Amendment.

11.50 a.m.

Sir K. WOOD: I do not think my hon. Friend need have any apprehension about this matter. The new paragraph
permits, and I think quite properly, the advisory body which is set up to advise the Minister, to brng forward suggestions on which they wound like to communicate and give advice to the Minister. The Minister is, of course, free to accept the advice or otherwise. In connection with the Post Office Advisory Body, for instance, I know that some little time ago that body had not the power to initiate matters in connection with the Post Office. It only had to consider matters which were referred to it and there was a good deal of dissatisfaction on the part of certain people because of that. I had experience of that body for three or four years, after such additional powers as are now proposed were given to them. They could initiate matters, discuss them and then ask the Minister to consider them. In my experience those powers never gave rise to the difficulty to which my hon. Friend has referred, and I hope that the proposal will not lead to any such difficulties in this connection. I hope that my hon. Friend will not insist further in his Amendment.

Amendment to Lords Amendment negatived.

Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 25, line 2, agreed to.

CLAUSE 27.—(Power of local authorities to make arrangements with housing associations.)

Lords Amendment: In page 26, line 24, at the end, insert:
(5) If a housing association represent to the Minister that they have submitted to the local authority proposals for arrangements under this section and that the local authority have unreasonably refused to make arrangements in accordance with the proposals, the Minister may require the authority to furnish him with a report as to the matter stating the reasons for their refusal.

11.52 a.m.

Sir K. WOOD: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
There has been criticism of the provisions of the Bill relating to housing associations, on the ground that the Housing Association will be entirely at the mercy of the local authority as to the use which might be made of their services. That, I, understand, is inherent
in the situation. Responsibility for housing matters in a particular locality cannot be divided among various bodies. It must rest solely with the local authority. The Government hope that the local authority will make the utmost use they can of housing associations, and that they will not unreasonably refuse to allot to them portions of the general housing work which they are competent to perform. I share that view very strongly.
The Amendment is aimed at the local authority which unreasonably refuses to assist a housing association which is able and willing to do some of the necessary work, and secures that an unreasonable attitude by a local authority will receive publicity. I hope that this provision will be very infrequently used or not used at all. It provides that a housing association may make representations to the Minister if a local authority is acting unreasonably, and that thereupon the Minister may require from the authority a report on the whole matter. If the report of the authority is regarded as unsatisfactory by the Minister for the time being, it will be competent for him to order a public local inquiry into the matter. This is an endeavour to meet a situation which I hope will very rarely arise, but a number of people who are keenly interested in the work of the Housing Association seek to have something of this kind incorporated in the Bill to sustain the Housing Association in this field of housing work.

11.45 a.m.

Mr. ARTHUR GREENWOOD: I am bound to say that on this side of the House we take the strongest possible objection to this Amendment. During the time of the present Government there have been repeated attempts to undermine the housing activities of local authorities by denying them the right to build houses unless they can prove that private enterprise is either unable or unwilling to do so. We have opposed proposals of this kind at every stage of the Bill, and now, at the very last moment, we have an Amendment of substantial importance dragged in which is going to strengthen the position of these housing associations. Let us admit that there may be somewhat slow-moving local authorities who may prefer to work through housing associations, and that there may be housing associations which can do very useful
work, but the proposal here is that if a housing association, in its view—not in the view of anyone else—thinks that the local authority has unreasonably refused to make use of its services, it can hold a pistol at the head of the local authority and say, "Unless you give us some work to do we are going to report you to the Minister." That is a monstrous position in which to place a local authority. It is a new departure, and I say that it is improper on the part of the Government, in a new experiment of this kind, at the very last stage of the Bill to introduce new powers enabling these housing associations to bully and dragoon local authorities into taking action against their will.
The Amendment provides that the Minister may require the local authority to furnish him with a report stating the reasons for their refusal. That is an interference with the rights of local authorities which I think the House ought to resist. The right hon. Gentleman spoke about ordering an inquiry, but I see nothing in the Bill which gives him the power to order an inquiry. Suppose that he has the inquiry, what is to be the end of it? If his inspector says, "We think the local authority is incompetent, and ought to farm out its work to a housing association," is the right hon. Gentleman going to enforce that; and, if so, how? The right hon. Gentleman's speech has not made it any easier for us to accept the Amendment, but more difficult, and I should hope that hon. Members on the other side of the House would prefer to wait and see how these housing associations work before they are given this power of threatening local authorities in the way suggested in the Amendment. I hope that the House will reject the Amendment.

11.49 a.m.

Sir P. HARRIS: I suppose I have had as long an experience of the administration of the Housing Acts as any Member present. I say that in no boastful spirit; I was doing this work for 27 years. I have the greatest admiration for the men and women who are associated with housing associations. They are most public-spirited, and have done very fine work, not only in providing houses for the working classes, but in experimenting
and, in some cases, setting standards of housing. I need only refer to the St. Pancras Housing Association, which is probably the most famous in the country—a pioneer organisation which has done noble service in that neighbourhood. I also have in mind the Bethnal Green Housing Association, which consists of people who seem to get money from nowhere, and who, as I would remind the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood), have in many cases tackled problems that no local authority could have taken in hand. If it is to be said that under this Measure their work may be limited or handicapped by unreasonable opposition from local authorities, then I am all for the Amendment. I gather, however, that it does not relate to the work that housing associations have already done, but rather suggests that local authorities, instead of doing their primary duty of dealing with the housing of the working classes, slum clearance, and improvement, should farm out their work to housing associations. If that be the meaning of the Amendment, I think we ought to resist it. If, on the other hand, it will secure to bodies like the St. Pancras Housing Association the power to go on with their noble and all-to-be-admired work, then we should support it. I have an idea, however, that it means something very different—that it is an attempt to shift from the local authority the responsibility for housing in their own area, and enable them to farm it out to housing associations. I hope that the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary will make the position clear.

11.52 a.m.

Sir K. WOOD: I do not think there will be any difficulty such as has been suggested. I should have thought that any local authority, having regard to the size of the task which is now being imposed upon it, would be glad to welcome the assistance of any competent housing association. I understand that the object is that local authorities should entrust the housing associations with work which they cannot themselves do, and the task is so great and so urgent that I should have thought that that would have been very desirable where there is a good local housing association able and competent to do the work.

11.53 a.m.

Mr. JAMES DUNCAN: I welcome this Amendment, and am very glad that the Minister is supporting it. I also welcome the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood), because it shows the complete divorce that exists between the attitude of the Labour party when they are dealing with politics and their attitude when they are dealing with administration. The right hon. Gentleman and his friends have done their best to belittle housing associations, quite regardless of the experience, extending over some years, of the way in which voluntary housing associations have helped in the housing of the working classes and in the administration and betterment of housing in various districts. The hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) has referred to St. Pancras and Bethnal Green. I should like to refer to Kensington, where voluntary associations have helped the local authority enormously in the improvement of housing for the working classes. With regard to the divorce between politics and administration—

Mr. GREENWOOD: The hon. Member is really misinterpreting what I said.

Mr. DUNCAN: I should like to mention that the Kensington Housing Association includes a member of the Labour party, and also that the Chairman of the Housing Committee of the London County Council addressed their last annual meeting, showing that, at any rate in Kensington, the Labour party in London welcome the help of voluntary housing associations. It is only when it comes to the Floor of the House that they oppose it.

12.5 p.m.

Mr. G. R. STRAUSS: The hon. Member has been answering an argument which has never been made. It has never been suggested, so far as I am aware, on this side of the House or by people holding the opinions that we hold, that housing associations may not in proper circumstances fulfil a very useful function. The hon. Member is perfectly right

when he says that local authorities under Labour control, certainly the London County Council, welcome the co-operation of housing associations working in conjunction with them. They have in fact in the past done and still are doing useful work. But the proposal before the House at the moment has nothing to do with that. The proposal that we are now considering is one to give to housing associations, good, bad and indifferent, the power to be a nuisance both to the local authorities and to the Ministry of Health. As far as I am aware, no reasonable proposals by housing associations have been turned down by local authorities in the past without very excellent reasons. We have had no evidence whatever that that has happened and, in order to support such a proposal as this, we should have a little evidence.

It is now proposed that housing associations which have been turned down by a local authority which does not approve of their schemes should have the power of going over the head of the local authority to the Ministry of Health, which is then in a position to ask the local authorities to report to them. If the Minister wants to do something to create bad blood between local authorities and housing associations, he is going the best way about it. If housing associations are to function properly and do the useful work that they can do, the first essential is that there should be good relationships between housing associations as a, whole and individually, and local authorities, and giving them this power to override local authorities and go over their head to the Minister of Health is the best way to create that bad blood by which housing associations, instead of helping in the amelioration of bad housing, will be made useless because they will be the local authorities' enemies instead of friends. For that reason alone, I think it is extremely unwise to press this Amendment.

Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

The House divided: Ayes, 102; Noes, 33.

Division No. 300.]
AYES.
[12.9 p.m.


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)
Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks, Aylesbury)
Broadbent, Colonel John


Anderson, Sir Alan Garrett
Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel
Brocklebank, C. E. R.


Apsley, Lord
Bossom, A. C.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y)


Aske, Sir Robert William
Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.


Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Horsbrugh, Florence
Remer, John R.


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Rickards, George William


Cooke, Douglas
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas


Cooper, T. M. (Edinburgh, W.)
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univ.)
Runge, Norah Cecil


Copeland, Ida
Law, Sir Alfred
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)


Crooke, J. Smedley
Levy, Thomas
Samuel, M. R. A. (W'ds'wth, Putney).


Cross, R. H.
MacAndrew, Major J. O. (Ayr)
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Dalkeith, Earl of
McLean, Major Sir Alan
Somervell, Sir Donald


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Macquisten, Frederick Alexander
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Davison, Sir William Henry
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Doran, Edward
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'morland)


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Stones, James


Eden, Rt. Hon. Anthony
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
Mellor, Sir J. S. P.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.


Fremantle, Sir Francis
Morrison, William Shepherd
Tate, Mavis Constance


Fuller, Captain A. G.
Moss, Captain H. J.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Ganzoni, Sir John
Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Munro, Patrick
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Goldie, Noel B.
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Orr Ewing, I. L.
Watt, Major George Steven H.


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Pearson, William G.
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Hartland, George A.
Percy, Lord Eustace
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)
Petherick, M.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Hertf'd)


Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilst'n)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley


Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Pownall, Sir Assheton



Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Ralkes, Henry V. A. M.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)
Reid, David D. (County Down)
Sir Walter Womersley and




Lieut.-Colonel Llewellin.


NOES.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot


Attlee, Rt. Hon. Clement R.
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Maxton, James


Banfield, John William
Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W. Riding)
Parkinson, John Allen


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Groves, Thomas E.
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Buchanan, George
Grundy, Thomas W.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, North)


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Harris, Sir Percy
Thorns, William James


Daggar, George
Healy, Cahir
Tinker, John Joseph


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Dobbie, William
Lawson, John James
Wilmot, John


Edwards, Sir Charles
Lunn, William



Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Gardner, Benjamin Walter
McEntee, Valentine L.
Mr. John and Mr. Paling.


Question put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 26, line 30, at the end, insert:

NEW CLAUSE A.—(Unification of conditions affecting housing associations' houses.)

" . Where the minister has undertaken to make in respect of any houses under the management of a housing association contributions under more than one enactment and the association are required to observe in the management of the houses varying special conditions or terms imposed by those enactments, the Minister may, on the application of the association and after consultation with any local authority who are under obligation to make grants or contributions in respect of any of the houses, make a scheme specifying, as conditions to be observed in the management of all the houses in substitution for the conditions or terms imposed as aforesaid, such conditions as he thinks fit and in specifying the conditions to be so observed the Minister shall have regard to the provisions of Part IV of this Act with respect to the conditions which a local authority are required to observe in relation to their houses."

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This new Clause will enable housing associations, if they so desire, to obtain the advantages of consolidation of subsidies and unification of rent conditions which the Bill confers on local authorities. It is not, however, compulsory as in the case of local authorities.

Subsequent Lords Amendment in page 26, line 36, agreed to.

CLAUSE 28.—(Amendments of the Act of 1925 as to public utility societies, & c.)

Lords Amendment: In page 27, leave out lines 6 to 12, and insert:
(3) In section ninety of the Act of 1925 the following subsection shall be inserted after subsection (2):
'(2A) An advance for any of the purposes specified in subsection (1) of this section shall be secured with interest thereon by mortgage of the land and
dwelling-houses in respect of which that purpose is to be carried out and of such other land and dwelling-houses (being houses which have been constructed or made suitable for the working classes by the company, society, association or person receiving the advance) if any as may be offered as security for the advance.
(4) In the said section ninety the following subsection shall be substituted for subsection (5):

12.18 p.m.

Sir K. WOOD: I beg to move "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment is designed to remove a small anomaly which arises out of Section 90 of the 1925 Act. That Section enables the Public Works Loan Board to advance money to a housing association for the purpose of constructing working class houses. Sub-section (4) of Section 90 sets out the conditions, and one of those conditions is that where the advance is secured by a mortgage on land or houses solely, the advance is not to exceed two-thirds of the value of the land or houses to be mortgaged. This has been interpreted as meaning that the advance is not to exceed two-thirds of the value of the houses to be constructed, and in practice it means that an association can only offer as security the actual land and the houses for the construction of which they need the advance. In some cases this has resulted in a hardship to a housing association. For example, a housing association might have sufficient capital to build, say, 10 houses, and may proceed to build those 10 houses. Having built them, they might find that it was desirable that they should have built twice that number of houses. If they had gone to the Public Works Loan Board in the first instance with a proposal to build the 20 houses, they would have been able to get a sufficient advance to enable them to complete the 20 houses. As it is, however, having finished 10 houses, the Public Works Loan Board can only consider the 10 about to be erected, with the result that very often the association cannot obtain from them a sufficient advance to enable them to complete their scheme. This Amendment will enable the Public Works Loan Board to take into account, when considering the amount of an advance to a housing association, any working class houses already erected by that association which can be offered as part security for the advance. I think
Members in all parts of the House will consider that that is a reasonable Amendment.

Mr. SPEAKER: This Amendment raises a question of Privilege.

Question put, and agreed to. [Special entry.]

Lords Amendment: In page 27, line 30, leave out "a mortgage of any land or dwelling-houses" and insert
such a mortgage as is mentioned in subsection (2A) of this section".

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—[Sir K. Wood.]

Mr. SPEAKER: This is consequential upon the last Amendment, and equally raises a question of Privilege.

Question put, and agreed to. [Special entry.]

Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 32, line 14, agreed to.

CLAUSE 42.—(Credits and debits in Housing Revenue Account.)

Lords Amendment: In page 37, line 29, after "charges", insert:
which the local authority are liable to pay".

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is hardly more than a drafting Amendment. It alters the clause which deals with loan charges so as to make it apply to the authority which, owing to an amalgamation scheme, was not the authority which originally borrowed the money.

Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 51, line 28, agreed to.

CLAUSE 61.—(Amendment as to buildings in clearance area on ground of bad arrangement, etc., and repeal of provision for reduction of compensation.)

Lords Amendment: In page 51, line 36, after the fiifst "arrangement", insert "in relation to other buildings".

12.24 p.m.

Sir K. WOOD: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
In both Houses criticism of this clause was put forward on the ground that there might be various interpretations of the expression "bad arrangement". It might be held to cover the internal bad arrangement of a house as well as the bad arrangement of the house in relation to other buildings. On further consideration we decided to remove any possible doubt as to the intention of the clause, about which I do not think there is any difference of opinion. The present Amendment makes it clear that "bad arrangement" in this clause refers only to the bad condition of the house in relation to other houses.

Mr. SPEAKER: A question of privilege arises on this Amendment which may result in additional compensation in some cases.

Question put, and agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Subsequent Lords Amendment to page 52, line 11, agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 52, line 26, at the end, insert:

NEW CLAUSE B.—(Obligation of the Minister to state reasons for deciding that a building is unfit for human habitation.)

"(1) Where a person upon whom notice of a clearance order or of a compulsory purchase order made under Part I of the Act of 1930 or under Part I of this Act is required to be served has duly made objection thereto on the ground that a building included therein is not unfit for human habitation, and the objection has not been withdrawn, the Minister shall not cause the public local inquiry with respect thereto to be held earlier than the expiration of fourteen days after it has been shown to his satisfaction that the local authority have served upon the objector a notice in writing stating what facts they allege as their principal grounds for being satisfied that the building is so unfit.

(2) Any person who objects to a clearance order on the ground that a building included therein, being a building in which he is interested, is not unfit for human habitation, or who objects on the like ground to a compulsory purchase order made under Part I of the Act of 1930, or under Part I of this Act, and who appears at the public local inquiry in support of his objection, shall, if the building is included in the order as confirmed as being unfit for human habitation, be entitled on making a request in writing to be furnished by the Minister with a statement in writing of his reasons for deciding that the building is so unfit."

12.27 p.m.

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
Sub-section (1) of this Clause provides that the Minister has not to hold a public inquiry in respect of a clearance or compulsory purchase order until at least fourteen days after it has been shown to his satisfaction that the objector has received notice from the local authority stating the principal grounds for being satisfied that the building is unfit. It is necessary that he should know what defects would be alleged to exist in his property at the proceedings. Sub-section (2) gives to any owner whose property is to be compulsorily demolished or is to be compulsorily purchased at site value the right to know the reason for the condemnation of his property. Both these concessions seem to be eminently reasonable.

Dr. ADDISON: Will the authority concerned be able to satisfy themselves that the person knows the ground upon which the proceedings are to be taken.

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: The objector, first of all, notifies the Minister and a copy is sent to the clerk, and then the clerk will presumably post a registered letter to notify the objector of the grounds upon which the proceedings are to be taken.

Dr. ADDISON: That I take it would be sufficient to enable them to say that they knew that the objector had such knowledge.

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: We must be satisfied that reasonable steps are taken.

Mr. PETHERICK: May I thank my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary for implementing the undertaking he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. North), who moved an Amendment similar to this on the Report stage which I supported.

Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 53, line 9, agreed to.

CLAUSE 62.—(Payments in respect of well-maintained houses).

Lords Amendment: In page 53, line 12, at the end, insert:
Provided that a payment under this section shall not in any case exceed the difference between the full value of the house (that is to say the amount which would have been payable as compensation if it had been purchased compulsorily but not as being unfit for human habitation) and the site value thereof (that is to say the amount which is payable as compensation by virtue of its being purchased compulsorily as being unfit for human habitation, or which would have been so payable if it had been so purchased), and any question as to such value shall be determined, in default of agreement, as if it had been a question of disputed compensation arising on such a purchase.

12.29 p.m.

Sir K. WOOD: I beg to move, "That this House cloth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
In another place various Amendments were proposed designed to limit the amount of payments which might be made in the circumstances of the Clause to an owner of a well-maintained house. The fear was expressed that, unless there was a limit of some sort imposed, the amounts might in some cases prove excessive, even to the extent that the total sums received by an owner might exceed the market value of his house. This would be an indefensible result, and I do not think that it would have the support of anybody in any quarter. The Amendment provides in terms that the market value of the house is to be the upper limit of the total payments received by an owner in respect of the house. I think that it is a very necessary Amendment.

Mr. SPEAKER: I must point out that the Amendment raises a question of privilege.

Question put, and agreed to. [Special entry.]

Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 53, line 40, agreed to.

CLAUSE 63.—(Arrangements where acquisition of land in clearance area found to be unnecessary).

Lords Amendment: In page 54, line 24, leave out Sub-section (2).

12.30 p.m.

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
We desire to leave out this Sub-section which is covered in a new Clause.

CLAUSE 66.—(Amendment of Act of 1925, Section 6, as to bye-laws).

Lords Amendment: In page 55, line 43, at the end, insert:
Provided that the foregoing provisions of this sub-section shall not affect the validity of any bye-laws made under the Public Health Act, 1875, or under the Public Health (London) Act, 1891, before the commencement of this Act by virtue of the power conferred by the said Section six, but any such bye-laws shall be deemed to have been made under the said Section six and may be revoked or amended accordingly.

12.31 p.m.

Sir K. WOOD: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This saving is necessary to clarify the position of existing bye-laws which have been made under the Acts cited, and which will continue in force. It is designed to remove any doubt as to the power of a local authority to revoke or amend them.

Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 57, line 4, agreed to.

CLAUSE 68.—(Power to purchase compulsorily land not immediately required).

Lords Amendment: In page 57, line 21, at the end, insert:
if it appears to the Minister that it is likely to be so required within five years,".

Sir K. WOOD: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
In another place and in the Standing Committee the opinion was expressed that the Clause was much too wide in its scope and would open the door to land speculation by local authorities. It was explained at the time that the purpose of the Clause was to enable local authorities to purchase land which they would obviously require not necessarily immediately but certainly before the expiration of their five years programme. In the circumstances it was decided to meet the criticism levelled at the Clause by limiting the powers of the local authority to the requirements for five years. This Amendment accordingly specifically limits the powers of a local authority compulsorily to acquire land in advance of their immediate requirements to land which the Minister of Health is satisfied is likely to be required within
five years. I think that that is satisfactory to all parties and meets the criticism that land might be bought a very long time ahead and that by that means various difficulties might arise. I think that five years is a reasonable period to insert.

12.33 p.m.

Sir STAFFORD CRIPPS: We certainly cannot agree with this limitation of time. I am sure that the Minister will agree with me that in the development which now takes place of these very large schemes for local authorities, a period of five years is far too short. The Dagenham Scheme, for instance, was under development 14 years. I happen to know a little about these matters because I have acted on behalf of the London County Council on the accession of a very great deal of the land in various parts around London. One of the things experienced constantly in these cases was the way in which directly the London County Council or other local authority started to go into an area prices rocketted up alarmingly. From month to month prices used to rise £20, £30, £40, £50 or £100 an acre. A local authority like the London County Council coming into the Morden, Dagenham, or Edgware district has to buy enough land not sufficient for five years but even for 10 or 15 years for big schemes of that sort. To limit them to five years is to give the speculators the very opportunity they want.
It is going to fix the local authority sufficiently in their area to make it obviously necessary to go on after the five years, and at the same time not to allow them to make provision in advance for the land which will be needed in that subsequent period of time. That is going to preserve to the speculator his power to get the benefit of local authority development in housing, which I am sure is not a thing which anybody in this House attempts to justify or would attempt in any way to support. If one were dealing with a small local authority which is going to put up 100 houses or so under a scheme, that could be done in the five years. They could buy their 20 or 30 acres of land in a block and cover it in the five years, but where you are dealing with these big local authorities who want hundreds and thousands of acres in order to do their rehousing, if
you say: "You may only buy enough land to be covered with houses in the next five years, and then in the next year you may buy another year's supply of land and the year after a further year's supply of land," you are going to lay them open to the very worst form of speculative competition in the acquisition of land.
I am sure that the House will bear in mind the fact that nowadays around the big towns there are very few large areas where you can put down a big scheme of housing. It is not as if you had an infinite choice. You have to bear in mind the questions of transport, amenities, conveniences, roads and the rest of it, so that there are only certain large areas into which you can go. Unless when you go there you have the power to take all the land that you want to develop, a thousand acres or so, you will be in the position that I have described. I think it was more than a thousand acres at Morden that was acquired by the County Council when they went down there, and it is not all covered yet, after all these years. If you say to a local authority: "How many houses are you going to build," and you are told one thousand a year, and then you say: "Well, you must not get land for more than 5,000 houses in five years," it means that in that event you are going to make them stop in that place because they have started there, and you are going to leave around a fringe of land into which they are forced to develop. You are going to give five years for the speculators to work up the prices in that fringe, so that when the moment comes that they have to acquire new land they will be the victims of these land speculators. I am certain that no one here desires that that should take place. I beg that the right hon. Gentleman will not insist on the five years' plan in this respect, whatever else he may desire to do, because it is impossible for the bigger local authorities to deal economically, as every one wants them to do, with this problem unless there is a longer term than that.

12.38 p.m.

Sir P. HARRIS: I should like to support what my hon. and learned Friend has said. If we accept this Amendment it will strike a fatal blow at the best kind of housing development. My hon. and learned Friend understated the case.
Becontree was bought 19 years ago and is not yet finished. If you follow garden city development and you are going to have proper planning and proper facilities for amenities, parks and open spaces you have to take the long-term view of the housing problem. You have to buy ahead. Therefore, my hon. and learned Friend is right in that respect. The average price of the Becontree estate when it was bought was something like £100 an acre—in my view that was rather too high a figure—but if you were to try and buy land in that neighbourhood now, as a result of the development of Becontree by the London County Council, you would have to pay four or five times that price.
My right hon. Friend is anxious to get these Amendments through, but he is also anxious to signalise his occupation of the great office of Minister of Health as a housing reformer. If, however, he allows these words to appear in an Act of Parliament he will go down for all time as one of the most reactionary—I say this deliberately—Ministers of Health that we have had since the war. We owe it to Lord Downham, a former Conservative of the Local Government Board—the same Department over which my right hon. Friend now presides—the credit for the buying of this large estate at Becontree. Some of the more modest members of the London County Council at that time wanted to do what the right hon. Gentleman apparently desires us to do now, and only to make provision for six years. But Lord Downham—then Mr. Hayes Fisher—insisted on big scale operations and on buying the whole of the estate, and the result is that we have the fine scheme which is not yet completed, although it is nearly finished, after 17 years' hard work. I feel sure that if my right hon. Friend had had further time to consider this problem he would not have accepted the proposed words. I hope that he will allow his second thoughts to be the right ones and that he will withdraw his support of the Amendment.

12.42 p.m.

Sir FRANCIS FREMANTLE: As I was the person who signed the contract for the Becontree Estate I should like to make some comments on the Amendment and on the speeches that have been made by the hon. and learned Member and the
hon. Baronet opposite. If the right interpretation of the Amendment is that which has been put by those two hon. Members, I should be entirely against it, because it is obvious to everybody that when there is development land goes up immensely in value. Becontree would have cost immensely more if we had had to buy the land piece by piece. In July, 1919, I signed the contract for £30,000,000, one of the largest contracts anybody has ever signed, on behalf of the County Council. It was a contract with a make and break Clause in it. Would that contract be accepted as proof that the land was required for those purposes? The scheme is now completed, or to all intents and purposes finished, and was opened by the right hon. Member for Swindon (Dr. Addison) last Saturday. The whole question rests upon the interpretation of the words:
unless it appears to the Minister that it is likely to be required for those purposes.

Sir P. HARRIS: In five years.

Sir F. FREMANTLE: The point is what does the word "required" mean? It does not necessarily mean that you have to complete the building on the estate in five years. I should like the Minister to say how he is going to interpret the word "required". When I signed the contract for Becontree in July, 1919, the area was required for that purpose, and therefore the money could have been granted. The question is, how does the Minister interpret the word. All depends on whether he says that it will meet the provision if there is a presentation of plans, or the beginning of building, or still further the completion of buildings. That point has not been discussed. I think that "required for the purpose" may be interpreted by him as a prepared scheme being brought forward, or a contract signed for reasonable progress of development within five years. That would be reasonable, but if the words mean that the buildings have to be completed within five years then, surely, neither the Minister nor any of us would so wish to diminish the possibilities of building.

Sir S. CRIPPS: Surely the roads and sewers were not finished within five years or anything like it.

Sir F. FREMANTLE: No, but my point is as to the way in which these words will be interpreted.

12.46 p.m.

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: I appreciate the point raised by the hon. and learned Member for Bristol East (Sir S. Cripps) but the House must realise the position before the Bill was introduced and how it has now been altered. The Becontree Estate was evolved under existing powers, under which a local authority cannot purchase in advance compulsorily, only by agreement. The existing powers have not prevented the London County Council developing Becontree. What we are doing now is to give compulsory powers to buy in advance of need. Having done that it seems only reasonable that you should fix some limit—five years seems to me to be a reasonable limit—for the exercise of these compulsory powers. What we have to consider is whether it will interfere in any way with housing, and the answer is no, because local authorities can anticipate a five-year programme, and have in fact done so. We have also to consider whether it will interfere with redevelopment. Every stage of redevelopment is governed by a time limit, there is six months for one process and two years for another. There again, this limit of five years will not interfere with redevelopment. It will give a new housing spirit to local authorities, who instead of dawdling along without having any plans will now know what they want to do in the matter of housing contracts and can come to us for compulsory powers to buy in advance of need.

Sir S. CRIPPS: The Becontree Estate was largely purchased compulsorily in advance of need.

Dr. ADDISON: I myself signed the order for the compulsory purchase of Becontree, nearly 3,000 acres, 14 or 15 years in advance of need. The hon. Member is entirely misinformed.

Sir K. WOOD: In any event local authorities will still have those powers.

Dr. ADDISON: No, this Amendment will take them away. They cannot buy for five years in advance of need. It would make a case like Becontree entirely impossible. In that case the whole point was whether the Minister was to sign an order for the compulsory purchase for the whole area; and I signed it.

Sir K. WOOD: I have just made inquiries and I understand that this Amendment will not interfere in any way with the powers of the London County Council.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I am sorry to intervene in a debate in which hon. Members seem to be proud because they have developed the Becontree Estate. There is a substantial body of opinion which is not too pleased with the building of a great mass of municipal houses all of the same type in a given area, producing social consequences of a kind which many people do not like. So far as the Amendment is likely to restrict that undesirable form of housing development I rejoice at the Amendment, but although it seems that it does not go as far as I thought it did I shall support it.

12.53 p.m.

Mr. G. R. STRAUSS: There seems to be a little misunderstanding in regard to this matter because the Minister himself is not quite certain how far the Amendment goes. If our view is correct it is going to have the most appalling effect on housing development. Everyone will agree that housing development is best done by means of large estates, and it is clear that if the Amendment is accepted the London County Council and other local authorities are going to be prevented from developing large estates. Every layman reading the proposal can come to no other conclusion but that. If the Solicitor-General can satisfy us that we are wrong I shall be the first to agree to the Amendment. As it appears now the Minister, through ignorance, I am sure that he does not want to do anything contrary to the best interests of housing, is asking the House to agree to something which is going to strike a most serious blow at housing development by large estates. I think we should have a definite legal view on the matter before we part with this most important proposal.

12.54 p.m.

Mr. McENTEE: I think it will be admitted that interpretation that is put upon this Amendment by hon. Members on this side of the House is the right one, and if the hon. Member for St. Albans (Sir F. Fremantle) desires to do which he has said he want to do, then,
obviously, he must vote with us. The point I want to make is that if only sufficient land is bought to carry over a period of five years, then if a local authority wants to purchase further land in the same vicinity the price will rise. What is going to be the effect of a rise in the price of land on the second lot of houses which may be built. Every £100 added to the price per acre means 6d. per week on the rent of the houses that are built. In the case of Becontree the price of land immediately increased by 300 to 500 per cent. Land which could be bought at the beginning of the scheme for £100 could not be bought later on for much less than £500 per acre. That would mean an increase of rent for the tenants equal to 2s. 6d. or 3s. per week. It is something that the House ought not to contemplate without very serious thought. I hope the Minister will be prepared to give the Amendment further consideration.

Mr. GREENWOOD: I hope that the Government will not accept this Lords Amendment. In any event we ought to have some statement from the learned Solicitor-General to clear up the position. We ought not, even at this late stage of the Bill, to allow the Amendment to go through unless the House is clear as to what it means.

12.56 p.m.

Sir K. WOOD: I have been considering this matter, and I am impressed with some of the arguments that have been addressed to me. No one has any desire to do anything which would restrict a local authority in having a reasonably advanced view. At the same time I want the House to appreciate that there have been cases cited in which local authorities have purchased land and then held it for a very long period, and ultimately have disposed of it. If it will be agreeable to the House I will move to substitute "ten years" for "five years." That would meet all requirements and would give the local authority a reasonable period. If I had the general assent of the House to that proposal it would strengthen me when I have to make the necessary provision in another place. If I have the support of the whole House I shall take the responsibility of making the period ten years instead of five years.

12.57 p.m.

Mr. GREENWOOD: The right hon. Gentleman is between the devil and the deep sea. We do not like this idea of a time limit at all. In the cases which have been cited the ten years limit would have been insufficient. However, I realise the difficulties of the Minister. He has to return this Bill to another place. My hon. Friends and I would feel that it was some advance towards dealing with the problem if ten years were inserted instead of five years. That would make necessary a consequential alteration of the Amendment on line 24. Then if the right hon. Gentleman finds from experience that something further is necessary I am sure the House will be agreed on the question of principle.

Dr. ADDISON: With regard to the last sentence in the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood), I hope that the Minister will give some attention to what is suggested.

Sir K. WOOD: I will take into account the experience that this may give us in deciding whether anything further can be done, and whether there is any reason for the apprehension which has been expressed. I ask leave to withdraw my Motion for agreement with the Lords Amendment.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made to Lords Amendment: In line 2, leave out "five" and insert "ten."—[Sir K. Wood.]

Lords Amendment: In page 57, line 24, at the end, insert:
and at the end of the said subsection the following proviso shall be inserted—
'Provided that a local authority shall not be authorised to purchase any land compulsorily for those purposes unless it appears to the Minister that it is likely to be required for those purposes within five years from the date on which he confirms the compulsory purchase order.'

Amendment made to Lords Amendment: In line 8, leave out "five" and insert "ten."—[Sir K. Wood.]

Lords Amendment: In page 59, line 44, at the end, insert:

NEW CLAUSE C.—(Power of local authorities to enforce covenants against owner for time being of land.)

"(1) Where—

(a) a local authority have sold or exchanged land acquired by them under the Act of 1925, or any enactment repealed by that Act, or under the Act of 1930, or this Act, and the purchaser of the land or the person taking the land in exchange has entered into a convenant with the local authority concerning the land; or
(b) an owner of any land has entered into a covenant with the local authority concerning the land for the purposes of any of the provisions of the said Acts;

the authority shall have power to enforce the covenant against the persons deriving title under the covenantor, notwithstanding that the authority are not in possession of or interested in any land for the benefit of which the covenant was entered into, in like manner and to the like extent as if they had been possessed of or interested in such land.

(2) Section one hundred and ten of the Act of 1925 shall cease to have effect."

12.59 p.m.

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is the new Clause to which I referred in speaking on a previous Lords Amendment.

CLAUSE 76.—(Service of Notices, etc.)

Lords Amendment: In page 60, line 30, at the end, insert:
(2) Subsection (3) of section nineteen of the Act of 1930 shall have effect, and shall be deemed always to have had effect, as if for the reference therein to service of a demolition order made thereunder there had been substituted a reference to service of a copy of the order.

Sir K. WOOD: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment was made to meet a point raised by the Association of Municipal Corporations. The Bill provides that a copy of a demolition order instead of the original order may be served on the persons concerned. This Amendment is necessary since there is only one original order and there may be more than one person to be served. The Association have pointed out that in some cases local authorities have served copies in the past, and unless this procedure is regularised by making this Amendment of the law
retrospective, litigation may ensue. Accordingly this Amendment makes the change retrospective and the present provision in the sixth Schedule is repealed.

CLAUSE 78.—(Amendment as to extinquishment of rights of way.)

Lords Amendment: In page 61, line 15, leave out:
the authority take possession of the land
and insert:
the buildings on the land are vacated.

Sir K. WOOD: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment is to meet a point put forward by representatives of the statutory undertakers, such as gas, water and electricity. Their point was that so long as houses were occupied they must be able to continue the supply of their commodity to the occupiers, and accordingly access to the houses must not be stopped so long as they are occupied. In practice this position would have obtained in any case, but the Amendment makes it clear that the order closing streets and public rights of way cannot operate until the local authority has obtained vacant possession of the houses and buildings concerned.

CLAUSE 79.—(Power of local authority to cleanse from vermin building to be demolished under clearance or demolition order.)

Lords Amendment: In page 61, line 23, leave out "after the order has become operative"; and insert:
between the date on which the order is (in the case of a clearance order) confirmed or (in the case of a demolition order) made and the date on which it becomes operative in relation to the building.

Sir K. WOOD: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is designed to remove a small defect in the Clause as drafted. As the Clause stands a local authority cannot give an owner notice that they intend to cleanse the building until after an order in relation to that building has become operative. That, of course, puts both the owner and the local authority
in an awkward position. An owner must have received a formal notice to demolish his house by a certain specified date before the local authority can send him another notice saying that he must not demolish. He may already have entered into a, contract for its demolition before he receives the second notice from the local authorities. In these circumstances it is desirable that the notice of the local authority that they propose to cleanse the building before demolition should be served on the owner before the order for demolition becomes operative.

Lords Amendment: In page 62, line 13, at the end, insert:

NEW CLAUSE D.—(Limitation of time for offer to repair insanitary house.)

"(1) In section nineteen of the Act of 1930 the following subsection shall be inserted, after subsection (1):
'(1a) A person upon whom notice is served under the foreging subsection shall, if he intends to submit an offer with respect to the carrying out of works, within fourteen days from the date of the service of the notice upon him, serve upon the authority notice in writing of his intention to make such an offer, and shall, within such reasonable period as the authority may allow submit to them a list of the works which he offers to carry out.'

(2) The following proviso shall be inserted at the end of subsection (2) of section twenty-two of the Act of 1930:
'Provided that the judge shall not accept from an appellant upon whom such a notice as is mentioned in subsection (1) of section nineteen of this Act was served an undertaking to carry out any works, unless the appellant complied with the requirements of subsection (1a) of the said section nineteen.'

Sir K. WOOD: I propose to ask the House to agree with the Lords in this Amendment.
In the Bill as introduced there was a Clause which had somewhat the appearance of this new Clause. It provided that a person should not be able to raise, at the hearing before the County Court, any question which he might have raised at the prior consultation with the local authority. The object of the Clause was to meet a complaint made by some local authorities that owners ignore the notice of the local authority to discuss the question of making a demolition order, and wait until the proceedings before the County Court, before giving undertakings which, if they had been given to
the local authority, would have kept the case out of the court. That Clause was withdrawn in Standing Committee. This new Clause is a reasonable proposition. It provides that where an owner receives notice from a local authority under Section 19 of the 1930 Act that they are prepared to discuss with him the condition of his house and any offer he may make as to its future user, the owner, if he proposes to offer an undertaking to carry out works to the house, must inform the local authority within 14 days. If he does not do so, and if the matter goes to the court, he will not be able to submit the undertakings at that stage to the county court.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, in line 5, to leave out "fourteen" and to insert "twenty-one."
The period of 14 days is rather short and I submit that 21 days would be more reasonable.

Mr. LEVY: I beg to second the Amendment to the Lords Amendment.

Amendment to Lords Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 80.—(Extension of power to make a closing order as to part of a building.)

Lords Amendment: In page 62, line 38, at the end, insert:
(2) Subsection (i) of section eighteen of the Act of 1925 shall have effect as if the words 'habitually used as a sleeping place' had been omitted.

1.6 p.m.

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
A promise was given that, in respect of the closing of underground rooms, this Bill should make of general application the powers now enjoyed by the Kensington Borough Council, who have the fullest powers to close any underground room, whether used for sleeping purposes or not. This Amendment carries out that promise.

Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 64, line 19, agreed to.

CLAUSE 83.—(Power of county court to vary lease where part of premises demolished.)

Lords Amendment: In page 64, line 28, leave out from "order" to "for" in line 33, and insert:
for the determination of the lease or.

Sir K. WOOD: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment slightly extends the powers conferred by the Bill, as originally drafted, on the county court by allowing the court to determine a lease in a case where not all the subject-matter of the lease is demolished, subject, of course, to such terms and conditions as the court thinks reasonable. The present restriction, which would prevent a lease being determined if there was one small part of the original property not demolished, seems unnecessarily hampering in the circumstances.

CLAUSE 84.—(Amendments as to allowances in respect of demolition, etc.)

Lords Amendment: In page 65, line 11, after "loss," insert "involving a personal hardship."

Mr. DEPUTY - SPEAKER (Captain Bourne): I have to call the attention of the House to the fact that this Amendment raises a question of Privilege.

1.8 p.m.

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
Before the Bill left this House power was given to local authorities to use their discretionary powers of compensation under Section 41 of the 1930 Act for shopkeepers who suffered loss owing to the operation of the Measure. That provision was extended to give the same discretionary power to a local authority in respect of shops which were just outside the area. The point was made that it was not the intention to give any discretionary compensation in the case of multiple shops. This Amendment, limiting the discretionary powers of compensation to cases which involve personal hardship, will cut out the multiple shops.

Question put, and agreed to. [Special entry.]

Remaining Lords Amendments agreed to. [One with special entry.]

SIXTH SCHEDULE.—(Consequential, drafting and minor Amendment.)

Consequential Amendment made: In page 89, line 18, after "arrangement" insert "in relation to other buildings."—[Sir K. Wood.]

Orders of the Day — AGRICULTURAL MARKETING ACTS.

The following Notices of Motion appeared on the Order Paper:
That the Amendments of the Bacon Marketing Scheme, 1933, which were presented to this House on the 22nd day of July 1935, be approved.
That the Bacon Development Scheme, 1935, made under the Agricultural Marketing Act, 1933, a draft of which was presented to this House on the 22nd day of July 1935, be approved."—[Mr. Elliot.]

1.11 p.m.

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Elliot): I beg to move,
That the Amendments of the Bacon Marketing Scheme, 1933, which were presented to this House on the 22nd day of July, 1935, be approved.
There are two Amendments to the marketing scheme which have to be dealt with before we are able to move the Motion approving the Development Scheme, which is to come before the House later.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: On a point of Order. As these two Amendments are closely connected, may we not deal with both of them together and if necessary a division could be taken on each of them afterwards, without further discussion?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: If that course be agreeable to the House, it would obviously be to the general convenience.

Mr. ELLIOT: I am indebted to the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) for his suggestion, and I shall be only too pleased to discuss these two Amendments together, especially as the second Amendment is not one of substance. It is intended to bring the scheme into relation with the Act of 1933 and I am advised by my legal advisers that it is necessary in order to avoid any possibility of legal dispute. But it
does not confer upon the Bacon Board any powers which that Board has not at present. I am advised that a challenge might be made in the courts because the wording is not exactly the same in the two cases. The first Amendment, however, is of more substance and it is only fair to give the House a short explanation of it. It is to provide that if for any reason an order were made by the Minister under section 2 of the Act of 1933 restricting the amount of home production that that should be shared equally by farmers producing pigs for sale themselves to bacon factories and for processors producing their own pigs. It will be seen that this cannot come into force at all unless there is an order by the Minister under section 2 of the Act of 1933. I do not contemplate making any such order because if made it would have to come before the House and it would require an affirmative Resolution of this House and also an affirmative Resolution in another place. The House will see that there will be full opportunity for review of the conditions which were producing such an Order, and therefore it is merely a potential power which is being given here and not a power on which there is any intention or indeed any possibility of acting without further review by this House.
It is also true that the Co-operative movement drew attention to that paragraph of the Amendment dealing with bacon produced from the curers' own pigs on the ground that it would prevent the co-operative societies from increasing the supply of bacon pigs produced on their own farms and that it would operate unfairly on the societies whose capital abroad had been injuriously affected by the quantitative regulation of imports. This objection led to a public inquiry being held at which the objection was not strongly pressed, and the inquiry did not sustain the objection. I cannot now, except very briefly, refer to the second business on the paper, which is part of the development scheme, and which in its turn, I believe, is acceptable to the Co-operative movement, and therefore they wish to take the rough with the smooth.
The Amendment here is put forward by the Bacon Marketing Board and is a concession to the pig producers by the curers; that is to say, they are saying, "If for
any reason there should be limitation, it shall apply to us who produce and cure pigs as well as to you who only produce pigs." These are rather hypothetical points, and I am sorry to have to trouble the House with them. This is a small and technical but real point, and the other is technical only, and I think it would be more to the advantage of the House if we could dispose quite briefly of the two Amendments and proceed to the consideration of the development scheme itself, which raises issues of interest upon which I am sure hon. Members in various parts of the House would like to speak.

1.18 p.m.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I think the very modest speech of the Minister is comparable at first glance to the two modest Amendments on the Order Paper, but I am not sure that the Amendments are as modest as the right hon. Gentleman would have the House believe. In fact, I think these two Amendments are absolutely fundamental and involve fundamental changes in the bacon marketing scheme and the prospective development scheme. The second Amendment definitely concedes the power to the bacon boards to determine not only kinds, varieties, and grades of bacon which may be sold, but to determine the quantities of bacon of any description which may be sold. Previously the boards have had no power to deal with quantity, and it was only the passing of the 1933 Act which altered the situation with regard to quantity.
Although the House is very thinly occupied, I think those who are sufficiently interested to be present ought to know the full possibilities of these two Amendments. The Amendment to Proviso 38 (1, b) definitely grants a power to bacon boards to restrict the output of home produce. Previously they only had the power to determine kinds, qualities, and grades, so that if the second Amendment is carried, the first Amendment comes into existence, and as the home output expands, with decreasing imports, then every existing producer will be able to increase his output proportionately. On the face of it, the first Amendment seems fair, namely, that whatever expansion there may be should be allocated proportionately over the whole of the existing producers, but something deeper than that is involved. This power, once conceded to the bacon boards, will be able
to hit at the quantity of bacon which in future years can be produced in this country, and this House ought to hesitate before it gives that power, not to a body which is in existence to serve a public purpose and need, but to the Bacon Marketing Board, which consists wholly of producers.
We are giving to people who are in business for the purpose of making a profit, and incidentally providing a service, the power to restrict the quantity of an article which forms a part of the daily diet of a very large number of people in this country, and I shall be interested to see what the attitude of the National Liberal party will be to this question, should there be any National Liberal Member in the House apart from the Home Secretary, or of the Liberals who are not National Liberals, or in fact of all those supporters of the free flow of economic courses and so forth. I think this power is a very important one. To grant, first of all, to the right hon. Gentleman the power to decrease the imports of bacon, and then to concede to a bacon board consisting wholly of producers, with no representatives of the consumers or the general public, the power to fix the quantity that shall be produced at home, is really to concede a power that ought to be given to no less a body than either a public institution or at least a public utility society, where conditions would definitely be laid down and obligations entered into.
I understand that there is ample justification for the bacon board seeking this power, for I gather that Mr. Marsh, of Messrs. Marsh and Baxter, who are the biggest people in the country in this trade, is chairman of the board. They have very powerful influence with the board, and if they can persuade the bacon board first, the Minister second, and the House third to give them this almighty power to restrict the output of home produce, I shall have nothing but admiration for their ability. This Amendment will mean, when connected up with the development scheme which we shall deal with later, that in future every pig or bacon producer in the country will have a guaranteed market, guaranteed prices, because this board will determine the output, which incidentally will determine the prices, and guaranteed perpetual profits, and no persons in future
will be able to produce except those who are producing at the moment.
What the right hon. Gentleman meant when he suggested that we were not extending the power and that Parliament would always have the right to intervene, if it thought fit, if a scheme went beyond the point that was deemed wise, I do not understand. The words of this Amendment are perfectly clear. It is proposed to eliminate all the words of Section 38 (1, b), and to add a new paragraph (b):
the quantity of bacon of any description which may be sold".
Clearly that gives the power to the Bacon Marketing Board to determine how much bacon shall be sold in any given period.

Mr. ELLIOT: I do not want to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I found that I had to spend a considerable time in hard thought upon the two sections before I was assured of their exact bearing. If the hon. Member will look at the proposed Amendment to Section 38, he will see that under their existing powers:
The Board may regulate sales of bacon … by determining ….
then it is proposed in paragraph (b) to say:
The quantity of bacon of any description which may be sold.
That power exists already.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Yes, but only if Parliament has given that power.

Mr. ELLIOT: The power only comes into action now if Parliament gives it, and there is no difference between the present law, which states that it can only come into force if Parliament gives power, and the law as it will be if this Amendment is accepted. In both cases Parliament will have to give the power by an affirmative resolution.

Mr. WILLIAMS: The right hon. Gentleman only confirms the point I was making. In the marketing scheme as it now exists the Board has the power to determine the kind, varieties, grades and so forth and:
If and when authorised by Act of Parliament and subject to the provisions thereof the quantity …
so that Parliament must be consulted and power must be granted before the Board
can have the power to determine quantities for the first time.

Mr. ELLIOT: No. As this is a point to which I have given a great deal of consideration, I would like to put it to the House as it appears to me. The words "if and when authorised by Act of Parliament" had to be inserted because the Act of 1933 was not yet law. That authorisation has since been given by the Act of 1933 "subject to the provisions thereof". The Act of Parliament which is referred to in the old paragraph (b) is the Act of 1933, which makes it possible for regulation of quantity to take place "subject to the provisions thereof", which means subject to an affirmative order voted by both Houses of Parliament. That is the present safeguard which the consumers and the public have, and it remains untouched by the Amendment which I am asking the House to accept. This is only a provisional power, and the present scheme is subject to the provisions of the Act of 1933. I think that the hon. Gentleman was a little confused, as I was, by the words "if and when authorised by Act of Parliament", because it might well appear that a special Act of Parliament had to be passed to authorise it. It is not so. The Act of Parliament which was envisaged there, and which has since been passed, is the Act of 1933. The safeguard of the House and of the public is an affirmative order under that Act, and that order has still to be passed under the Amendment which is now proposed.

Mr. WILLIAMS: If the right hon. Gentleman's interpretation is the proper one—and he has at his disposal all the legal experts in the various departments—I should like to know why the Amendment is moved to-day. If ultimately the Bacon Board desire to utilise the power to fix quantities, they will have to come to Parliament for an affirmative order before they can continue. It seems to be that even without this Amendment the Bacon Board could at any time proceed to Parliament to ask for an affirmative order which would enable paragraph (b) of Section 38 to come into existence. What is the point of this Amendment if subsequently, before quantities can be determined by the Bacon Board, it will still have to come to Parliament for an affirmative order?

Mr. ELLIOT: That is precisely the question I asked my legal advisers when they put these Amendments before me. I asked whether this made any effective change, and they said, "No". I said, "Why, then, should we bring this before Parliament?" They said, "Because this scheme was passed before the Act of 1933 was passed". During the passage of that Act certain modifications in wording, but not in principle, were made, and the words which concern us here are that if such a limitation of quantity were to be made, the Board must prescribe the method of determination. It is merely a technical point that if a regulation is to be made, the Board shall really set out, so that all can see, the principle by which it was proceeding to apply this regulation. My legal advisers said that the words of Section 38 as they stand in paragraph (b) do not enjoin the Board to prescribe the method of determination. They merely lay down that the Board may regulate sales of bacon by determining the quantity of bacon which may be sold; but, they say, Parliament also laid down that the Board must prescribe a method of determination, that is to say, must set out clearly the method by which it proposes to do it, thus giving an additional safeguard to the consumer and to the House. My advisers then said that because the scheme does not in set terms enjoin the Board to do this, therefore such determination might be challenged in a court of law. It is in order to remove this difficulty that we ask for the Amendment to be incorporated in the scheme.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I hope that every hon. Member in the House will now be perfectly clear on that point. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that I am. I understand now that the Amendment is moved to-day? If ultimately the Board are determining the quantities of bacon to be sold, they have to prescribe a method of determining the limitation, so that it is not so much the quantities with which we are dealing, as the method of prescribing the quantity.

Mr. ELLIOT: That is so.

Mr. WILLIAMS: That is perfectly clear. But the principle of what I am saying remains. If we accept this Amendment we are accepting the handing over of powers to a producers' board to
determine the output of a commodity which is in daily use in almost every home, and to determine also that in future only existing producers will be able to produce the commodity, to expand the output of which the right hon. Gentleman has applied every known method. Once this power to fix a particular quantity for a particular period is given only existing producers will be able to produce bacon in future. What we are doing to-day—or going half-way to doing: the right hon. Gentleman will agree that it needs only one more affirmation—is to grant a prescriptive perpetual right to existing producers of a certain commodity to produce that commodity, giving power to the Board to declare that no person not at present producing that commodity may ever be permitted to do so. It may be that for the sake of organisation and efficiency these powers are necessary under a national scheme, but I have yet to be persuaded that such powers ought to be granted to bodies of people who are in existence for profit and to whom service is secondary.
There is nothing in the schemes, nor has the right hon. Gentleman said anything, about limiting profits. They can limit the quantities to as low a figure as they like and increase their profits as high as they like. They are not like a public utility society, upon whom conditions are laid and whose profits are restricted. They will have the same power as the sugar factories have to exploit the situation, the same freedom as the hop producers have to exploit the power conceded to them. I do not think we ought to concede such powers. If there were consumers' representatives with power to prevent excessive profits being secured I could understand the position. The first thing that we on these benches stand for is an efficient system, but not efficiency under a scheme which gives a comparatively small number of people a prescriptive right in perpetuity to produce commodities for a guaranteed market, with a guaranteed price and with profits as high as they care to make them.
The first Amendment determines that once an increase in home production has been decided upon the expansion shall be pro rata, farm by farm or producer by producer. On the face of it that seems fair, but the right hon. Gentleman knows
as well as anyone else that it will not be fair to a very large consumers' society in this country. The Co-operative Wholesale Society are responsible for the supply of bacon to 7,000,000 persons. They were unable to obtain supplies in this country, and had to invest the savings of the working class members of co-operative societies in Denmark, where they produce the kind and the quality of bacon which is required. The right hon. Gentleman has imposed restrictions upon imports from Denmark, and 40 per cent. of the imports of co-operative society bacon from Denmark have been cut off. Co-operative society funds have, therefore, been endangered by these import restrictions, and the co-operative societies quite rightly say, "If you close down our factories by cutting off our imports we are entitled to expect that if there is any expansion of output in this country the Co-operative Wholesale Society shall be permitted to produce a quantity equivalent to that which they are prevented from importing from Denmark, where it has been cured in their own factories."

Mr. PETHERICK: Why could not the co-operative societies, instead of investing money in Denmark, simply buy from Denmark?

Mr. WILLIAMS: The hon. Member puts a perfectly proper question. The Danish people invited the co-operative societies to invest money in bacon-curing factories. The Danish people knew that they themselves had the skill, that they knew how to produce bacon of the quality and kind that the English consumer wants. The co-operative society knew they had 7,000,000 members whose needs must be catered for and felt that the most convenient thing for them to do, in the absence of bacon-curing facilities in Denmark, was to invest co-operative society money in Denmark to cure the bacon which was to hand there. If English producers had produced the right type and the right quality for the needs of our own market the co-operative society would have readily established bacon-curing factories in this country. They only acted as they did because British producers of bacon were indifferent, and never tried to meet the needs of the market here. The Co-operative Wholesale Society went over to Denmark to do what could not be done in this country.
If the right hon. Gentleman is justified in cutting off 107,000 cwt. of bacon previously imported by the co-operative societies and hopes to increase output in this country, clearly the Co-operative Wholesale Society ought to be permitted to produce here the same quantity of bacon as they were importing, but once these Amendments have been made only existing producers at home will be able to expand, and there will be no compensation for the loss of capital invested abroad by co-operative members. These two Amendments go two-thirds of the way to establishing perpetual monopolies in private hands, with no restriction on the profits to be made and no safeguards for the consumers, despite the right hon. Gentleman's investigation committees, and so on. Although we on these benches want to see the pig and bacon side of the agricultural industry as efficient as it can be made, we cannot feel justified in conceding power to bodies of producers to limit production, to fix prices and to settle their own profits—giving them, in short, the right in perpetuity to exploit the community here.

1.43 p.m.

Mr. R. T. EVANS: On more than one occasion I have expressed my detestation of the whole bacon scheme. I feel that it is not on right foundations and have more than once crossed swords over it with the Minister, but as that scheme has been accepted I think it is necessary to embark upon the Development Board. What I am anxious about, however, is that this Development Board should not be endowed with tyrannous powers. The whole organisation of bacon production is in danger of becoming a close corporation, a fusion of vested interests, and what I am afraid of, as the representative of an agricultural constituency, and having received frequent representations from West Wales—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I did understand orginally that we were going to discuss both schemes together, but neither the Minister nor the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) has spoken of the second, and in the circumstances I think we had better dispose of the bacon scheme first and then deal with development.

Mr. EVANS: I also thought that the Amendments would have been first disposed
of and the larger issues then discussed, but so much latitude was given to the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) that I thought it had been tacitly agreed that we should embark on the larger discussion.

Mr. ELLIOT: I think that what both the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) and I had in mind was that we should deal with the Amendments to the scheme, which are two in number, together, that we should dispose of them, and then discuss the somewhat larger issue of the development scheme, about which we should be very ready to hear the remarks of the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. R. T. Evans).

1.45 p.m.

Dr. ADDISON: I do not want to prolong the debate unduly, but, notwithstanding the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman that the approval of the Amendments will only be provisional, they involve the opinion of the House upon the principle which is contained in the proposals. It is upon that matter that I wish to say a few words. During the passage of the 1931 Act through this House, I resisted all the time a very large number of Amendments which would have had the effect of conferring upon the producers power to limit quantity, and there is no power of that kind in the 1931 Act because of that profound objection on my part. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would agree that I have not been a captious critic of his proposals, but I am satisfied that the experience of the last four years abundantly justifies the apprehension which led to my opposition. It is not right that a producers' board should be equipped with power to limit the production of other producers. If that is to be done at all, it should be by a board which has no interest in production; by, as we suggested, an agricultural commission—no matter what you call it—that has no special interest in the matter.
There are other objections equally important in this matter of the method of approach. We recognise that if you are to have an organised and orderly market scheme you must have reasonable information as to forthcoming supplies because you must be able to deal with the market in an orderly and sensible way. That is a quite different scheme
from what is now proposed. It would be quite proper for the appropriate board to have quarterly or monthly returns as to supplies which were likely to be forthcoming. The purpose of the power of quantitative restriction, for that is what this is, is not to facilitate the better supplying of the needs of the market; the design behind it is to sustain prices. We take the view that although it is necessary to have a managed price system and to have stability in prices, you should not seek to attain your purpose by the power to impose a shortage. That is the wrong way to set about it. You have no right to impose a shortage. What will actually happen? If there is a programme to increase production by five per cent. or whatever it is, existing producers would be entitled to increase their production by that percentage. There are, perhaps, 120,000 producers. It is anyhow a very large number, and is somewhere round about that figure, and they are all subject to ordinary human mortality. Suppose a man dies who produces 100 pigs a quarter, or it may be only 20, what is going to happen? That supply disappears. Another man gets tired and goes in for market gardening or does something else—

Mr. BUCHANAN: Or goes bankrupt.

Dr. ADDISON: Quite so.

Mr. BUCHANAN: He is more likely to become a millionaire.

Dr. ADDISON: I expect that my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) will put me right in this matter. Suppose a man, because of financial or family trouble, should not produce the same number of pigs next year as he produced this: what is going to happen to his percentage of pigs? Is it to be lost? What are the Board going to do about it? Is that man going to his neighbour, to say: "I am entitled to produce 50 pigs next month, but I do not want to produce 50 pigs. I would rather do something else. You are entitled to produce 40 pigs. If you like to buy my right to produce 50 pigs, I will take so much for it." I see an hon. Member shaking his head, but I am sure that that is what will happen. We shall see wholesale transactions going on everywhere.
People will be selling rights not to produce pigs, and the same absurdity will arise as has already sprung up in the United States. It is not a sensible way of dealing with the matter.
We want to enter a protest against this method of doing it, without in any way wishing to raise a protest against building up a system of orderly marketing, which must have proper reasonable statistics. There is also the case of the co-operative societies. I do not speak for one society or another society. I am not holding a brief for anyone in particular. Suppose they say, "We are more efficent in this business than any one else. Next year we shall produce 500 pigs instead of 100." Several other people will have to produce a smaller number. It means a permanent handicap upon efficiency if you stereotype the expansion to five per cent., or whatever the percentage may be, whilst behind the scenes the producer can go to somebody else and give them something for not producing. He may not otherwise be able to obtain the expansion which he, as an efficient producer, is able to make use of. You are stereotyping inefficiency while you are prejudicing efficiency by this method. All that is wanted is that your board should be informed of the supplies likely to be coming forward. They can be informed, quarterly or monthly, or whatever it is. I have no doubt that the supplies likely to be forthcoming will increase. They may increase five per cent. or ten per cent.
Another reason why this method is adopted is that those concerned have not yet made up their minds to approach the only rational way of dealing with the import question, which is our socialist method. I am sure that the arbitrary reduction of quantities is not right. You should have an import board, working as to quantities, regulated by the needs of the market in alliance with your home market, and supplied with the proper statistics so that they may be able to provide accordingly. If the statistics are a quarter in advance, let them be a quarter in advance, or whatever may be the time necessary for a businesslike way of doing it. The association, in feeding the market, between two organisations of that kind is all that is required as far as this side of the question is concerned.
In this case there is a better reason that in any other field why that method should be adopted. We import about five times as much as we produce, so that there is immense room for expansion, and, therefore, there is no reason why any part of the country that is particularly flourishing should be limited in its expansion to 5 per cent., or 10 per cent. for that matter, whereas there may be another part of the country which is not prepared to go in for expansion, or may even want to go back; and it is absurd to impose upon a part of the country which is efficient and doing well the necessity for going behind the scenes and buying quotas from somebody else who is inefficient and cannot do the job. We ought to give elbow-room to efficiency. If any part of the country is prepared to send to the Board in advance details showing that its supplies during the next quarter will be so much more, I should be very glad; that is what we ought to encourage; and it would be perfectly possible, with a decent statistical department, to arrange for market supplies in conjunction with an import organisation. In my submission, too, that is the only proper way in which we shall ever arrive at a reasonable price arrangement.
This method has one other vice. Necessarily it cannot take any account of the consumer's end, and nobody knows better

than the right hon. Gentleman that in the long run all these schemes stand or fall by the willingness of the market to take the supplies. You must, therefore, have a body in living touch with the consumer's end, and having powers of control over prices and distribution charges sufficient to maintain demand. A body of the kind now proposed, with arbitrary powers which a producers' body, anyhow, ought not to have, will be entirely divorced from this other end of the business. This kind of regulation and organisation and direction should be in the hands of a body which is not interested, but which carries out the policy of the National Government on behalf of the Minister. It should not be in the hands, of interested parties. That is the real point behind our objection, apart from my machinery objection, and I am sure that sooner or later this method of approach to the achievement of orderly marketing will give rise to so many disputes and wrong impressions that it will be very likely to prejudice the whole idea of a decently organised marketing system. We see many of them already, and I am sure they will be intensified if we allow the board to be endowed with these powers.

Question put.

The House divided: Ayes, 111; Noes, 31.

Division No. 301.]
AYES.
[2.0 p.m.


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Ganzoni, Sir John
Moss, Captain H. J.


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)
Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Munro, Patrick


Aske, Sir Robert William
Goldie, Noel B.
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)


Bernays, Robert
Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)
Penny, Sir George


Bossom, A. C.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Percy, Lord Eustace


Bower, Commander Robert Tatton
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Petherick, M.


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilst'n)


Broadbent, Colonel John
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Power, Sir John Cecil


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Horsbrugh, Florence
Ralkes, Henry V. A. M.


Brown, Rt. Hon. Ernest (Leith)
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Ramsay T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)


Browne, Captain A. C.
Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.


Burnett, John George
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Rickards, George William


Butt, Sir Alfred
James, Wing.-Com. A. W. H.
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas


Campbell, Sir Edward Tatwell (Brmly)
Kirkpatrick, William M.
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univ.)
Runge, Norah Cecil


Clarry, Reginald George
Law, Sir Alfred
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)


Conant, R. J. E.
Leckie, J. A.
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)


Cooke, Douglas
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)


Copeland, Ida
Levy, Thomas
Samuel, M. R. A. (W'ds'wth, Putney)


Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Llewellin, Major John J.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Crookshank, Capt, H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Unv., Belfast)


Cross, R. H.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Bassetlaw)
Somervell, Sir Donald


Crossley, A. C.
McKeag, William
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Cruddas, Lieut-Colonel Bernard
McLean, Major Sir Alan
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Doran, Edward
Magnay, Thomas
Stones, James


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Strauss, Edward A.


Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Sutcliffe, Harold


Fuller, Captain A. G.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P.
Tate, Mavis Constance


Thorp, Linton Theodore
Watt, Major George Steven H.
Womersley, Sir Walter


Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley


Wallace, Sir John (Dunfermline)
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)



Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Wills, Wilfrid D.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Hertl'd)
Mr. Blindell and Captain Hope.


NOES.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot


Banfield, John William
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W. Riding)
Parkinson, John Allen


Buchanan, George
Grundy, Thomas W.
Rathbone, Eleanor


Daggar, George
Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Rea, Sir Walter


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Healy, Cahir
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Dobbie, William
Janner, Barnett
Thorne, William James


Edwards, Sir Charles
John, William
Tinker, John Joseph


Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Lunn, William



Gardner, Benjamin Walter
McEntee, Valentine L.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Groves and Mr. Paling.

Resolved,
That the Amendment of the Bacon Marketing Scheme, 1933, which were presented to this House on the 22nd day of July, 1935, be approved.

2.7 p.m.

Mr. ELLIOT: I beg to move,
That the Bacon Development Scheme, 1935, made under the Agricultural Marketing Act, 1933, a draft of which was presented to this House on the 22nd day of July, 1935, be approved.
It might be for the convenience of the House if I explained the proposal which now comes before them. It is the sanctioning of the development scheme under the Marketing Act of 1933. The development scheme arises out of the Lane-Fox Commission's Report, which drew attention to the very points which have just been stressed by hon. Members opposite, the desirability of bringing the bacon industry of Great Britain up to date and also the necessity for having a certain representation of the general public on any body that is set up. The arguments of hon. Members opposite upon the previous Motion indicated that a certain representation of the general public should take place when these new bodies were being brought into existence, and this scheme provides for that. The scheme of the Development Board provides for four representatives from each of the Boards and three representatives to be appointed by the Minister and, therefore, I think, goes a long way to meet the objections made in various parts of the House that the interests of the general public were not being sufficiently considered. The hon. Member for Carmarthenshire (Mr. R. T. Evans) indicated that, while having misgivings about the scheme as a whole, he was prepared to allow these developments
to proceed but that he thought that they would need to be exercised in a cautious and not in a tyrannical manner. I think that will be found to be so. I think the representatives appointed by the Minister will bring in an element which will be very valuable in the development of the industry. We have found in negotiations before that outside representation has often succeeded in reconciling the interests of two bodies which otherwise might have been very much opposed to each other.
There is a danger, of course, in all these matters of over-organisation, and my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) is undoubtedly a protagonist of the non-planner. We have had to move between the Charybdis of chaos and the Scylla of over-organisation and all that one can say is that, when a scheme is criticised from one quarter on the ground that it is not doing enough and from another on the ground that it is doing too much, it is possible that the happy medium is somewhere in between. The work of the development scheme can only be tested in practice. It it does not work, it will not be continued. The two Boards have delegated powers, but only delegated powers. The powers will remain so long as the resolution delegating them remains in force and, if the scheme works inefficiently, no doubt the powers will be rescinded and the scheme will not remain in force. I do not think it necessary to go in great detail into the matter because the necessity for an organised industry with improved modern methods of factory construction and the like are common to all of us. The only point that is raised by hon. Members opposite, as to whether societies in which they are interested, like the co-operative society, will receive reasonable treatment
under the scheme is, I think, met to a considerable extent by the fact that we are going to work in the spirit of the Lane-Fox commission, which specially laid down in one of its most important paragraphs that
We think that consideration should be given to curers who in the interest of both pig producers and the bacon industry as a whole are prepared to transfer factory accommodation from foreign countries to the United Kingdom, and specially to those who are also in a position to sell the bacon that they produce direct to the consumer.
It would be in a spirit of fair play to all who desire to welcome recruits to an industry who would bring capital and efficient organisation to bear that we should hope that the Development Board would operate and I do not think it is necessary to do more than refer to the great difference between this country and Denmark and to the fact that we have over 600 curers of whom only seven are handling a through-put of more than a thousand pigs a week, whereas in Denmark there are 80 factories with an average through-put of about 2,000 pigs a week. It seems to me in those circumstances that it is desirable that somebody representing both producers and curers and the general public should survey the situation, because to the producers themselves an inefficient process is the greatest disadvantage. It leads to high costs, to waste and to a lower return to them for their products. I look to the Development Board as a sign of the interest of the producers themselves in the technical efficiency of the processing end of the organisation. It is admittedly an experiment but one which has much hope in it, and I commend it to the House.

2.14 p.m.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I wish the right hon. Gentleman could have told the House that the development scheme embodied the statement that he made with regard to transferring factories from foreign countries to this country. After all, once the scheme is in action, it is, left to the Board to determine what shall or shall not happen. I should prefer that we had it in black and white before we hand over powers to interested persons such as we are about to confer upon them. The House ought to remember that this is the first scheme of its kind, and it is almost equivalent to a revolution in economics. The right
hon. Gentleman is asking the House to accept a development scheme which grants full power to certain selected individuals to determine what the factory capacity for the bacon-curing industry in this country shall be. We have just passed two amendments to the Marketing Acts which partially conceded the power to restrict output. There is already the power to restrict imports of bacon. We have witnessed the results. There is a general decrease in the bacon consumption of this country, because people cannot afford to buy it, and this development scheme is the natural consequence of the breakdown of the pig marketing scheme. The constitution of this Board originally was three members of the Pigs Board, three members of the Bacon Board and three impartial members, making nine in all; but it is now four members of the Pigs Board, four members of the Bacon Board and three impartial members. Eight to three is a fairly weighted balance on the side of the producers, and it seems to me that the Board ought not to be so heavily weighted in favour of producers and against consumers.
This development scheme confers powers on the Board to license all bacon factories, and no other bacon factory after the appointed date will be able to produce bacon at all. They can close down factories, prevent new factories being erected, determine the conditions of such factories that remain and who shall have compensation or not. They are all-powerful on this body of three to eight—three representing 40,000,000 consumers, and eight representing 600 bacon factory owners.

Mr. ELLIOT: I think the factory owners would be delighted if they thought that all producers represented bacon factory owners. The interests are by no means identical.

Mr. WILLIAMS: The Board has power to close down such factories as they regard as being in unsuitable geographical areas, or if they are inefficient or do not comply with any of the conditions which they think ought to exist in a bacon factory. It is obvious that the Marsh and Baxter people, who are all-powerful in the bacon world, will secure for themselves a monopoly once this
scheme goes through. I have referred before to what we have witnessed already with hops, and what the factory owners did with sugar taking, at least 50 or 60 per cent. of the sums which we thought were available for the beet farmers. The factory owners walked away with it, and, unless we are careful, these people will also walk away with any benefits that filter through to the producers of pigs, that is, the farming element as distinct from the factory element who are going to utilise the raw material for the manufacture of bacon. The Board are able to lay down conditions as to whether a factory shall remain in existence or not, having regard to existing or prospective consumption, and if the premises do not meet with the approval, or are regarded as not being efficiently equipped, they can put them out of existence. They can refuse a licence if a licence previously granted has been revoked. It is true there are powers of appeal to arbitration and so forth, but the consumer really has got no power.
Once this scheme is accepted, I doubt very much whether the Co-operative Wholesale Society will get the justice to which they are entitled, although I hope, after what the right hon. Gentleman said, that something will be done at least to compensate them for the loss of their capital and their factory capacity in Denmark as a result of decreasing imports. It seems a strange thing that a body of people like the Co-operative Wholesale Society, operating exclusively for their members, are denied the right to purchase the number of pigs they want, and, secondly, denied the right, under the terms of this development scheme, to have the factories necessary to meet the demands of their 7,000,000 consumers. The Co-operative Wholesale Society and their retail shops will perforce have to go to Marsh and Baxter or their parallels because they are denied the privilege of serving their own people. It is a tremendous power to put into the hands of a producers' board, and I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Dr. Addison) that if, for the purpose of efficiency in any branch of the agricultural industry, we require to give this power to supervise organisation that in itself is very desirable, the power ought to be given to a public utility
society, or some body of persons operating on behalf of the consumers, and not be put into the hands of a body of people in existence for the maximum amount of profit they can derive. We ought to concentrate on maximum output and short prices.
I would have liked to have made reference to one or two other sections of this development scheme—48 and 49 for instance—which gives power over insurance, sales, transport charges, transport arrangement and other things, if the Pigs and Bacon Boards pass a resolution handing over the power to the Development Board. But because this Board is exclusively a producers' board, with powers never given to any similar board in the history of Parliament, we not only doubt the wisdom of the action of the right hon. Gentleman, but are obliged to oppose the development scheme.

2.24 p.m.

Captain HEILGERS: The Minister spoke of the danger of over-organisation.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Hear, Hear.

Captain HEILGERS: I am glad to hear that cheer from the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams), because he was absent when the Minister referred to it. Personally, I would like to say that this Development Board is the biggest step forward in the planning of agriculture we have had so far. I do not believe that any marketing scheme can survive unless it has some connecting neutral link, as we have in this Board. Far too much time has been wasted with the Pigs and Bacon Marketing Boards in going backwards and forwards, talking about contracts and forgetting all about organisation.
I have risen because I happen to represent a part of the country where there are more pigs than anywhere else. I happen to have the biggest bacon factory in England in my own constituency. I want to draw attention to two things that this scheme is going to do. The Minister touched on the question of waste, caused by overhead costs. Recently two of our very experienced agriculturists went to Denmark and investigated conditions there. They found that the Danes pay more for their pigs, and sell them for less. There is one reason for that—
organisation. The Danes are paying from 13s. to 14s. a score for their pigs, and we, for the same pigs in this country, are only getting from 12s. to 12s. 6d. a score. I think the explanation is that the overhead costs in Denmark are 6s. 3d. a score from the farm to England, and our own factories, when they are negotiating with the Pigs Marketing Board, have always said up to now that their overhead costs were at least twice those of factories in Denmark. That is a very important point which needs the immediate attention of the Development Board. The other unsatisfactory feature of the present situation to which I would draw the attention of the House is the question of grading. There are five grades of pigs at present. In Denmark there are only three, and where we as producers get the worst of the bargain in this country is because we get paid 4d. or 6d. a score less for our Grade B than for our Grade A pigs and yet both Grade A and B realise the same price when sold for bacon.
Those are the two main points I wish to put. I am very glad that the Development Board is going into the matter of education and research. There is very great need for it in the bacon industry. At the biggest pig show the other day in the country the pigs judged as being the first grade and best pigs in the show were found, when they came to be slaughtered, not to be grade A pigs as the best judges in England maintained, but two were Grade B and the other two were Grade D. I hope that the Board will do something in connection with that question. I also hope that the Board will be able to find what we believe to be the missing pound between the consumer and the producer. I think that we have done right to start with pig and bacon marketing boards separately and to allow them to get upon their feet. Anything less would have discouraged the whole scheme. The Lane Fox Report laid it down that we needed a development board, and I believe that not only does the bacon scheme need a development board but every marketing scheme.

2.28 p.m.

Mr. R. T. EVANS: There are still a few points which need stressing. The House of Commons, having accepted the principle of limitation of output must,
I concede, provide some means of implementing that decision, and I cannot see any other way than by instituting some sort of system of factory licences, but I would call attention to the silent revolution through which we have passed. I am in something of a dilemma, because hon. Members who represent South Wales constituencies have recently been asking the President of the Board of Trade to interfere with a certain concern and to impose upon them a veto to prevent them taking their works to another part of the country, and, therefore, I find it very difficult this afternoon to refuse the request of the Minister for powers to prevent factories being put up because other factories are not working on an economic basis owing to the inadequate supply of pigs. Perhaps the most engaging revolutionist that has ever sat on those benches is the Minister of Agriculture, because he has piloted us through this amazing transformation, and he is giving to a statutory body only inadequately controlled by this House powers to veto private enterprise.
Yet, I believe that there must be some means of implementing this decision, but I want to secure from the Minister a very definite assurance that the Development Board will not be allowed to exercise its powers in a tyrannical way. Since 1933 a company backed by the whole of the agricultural community has been seeking permission to build a bacon factory—this is not the first time I have mentioned it to the Minister—in West Wales. Naturally one would desire that these people should have permission to build a factory, but the fact remains that they will now have to apply for a licence to a body which does not represent opinion in that area, and, with the exception of the nominees of the Government, does not represent the opinion of the consumers. You are endowing this Development Board with the right to say that there shall not be a bacon factory, whereas the whole local opinion is in favour of it. The capital is available on option on the site which has been taken, and all the farmers are favourable, yet we confer powers on that body to veto such a development. I hope that, if we are to give these powers to the Development Board, the Minister will exercise the most rigorous vigilance in preventing their tyrannous application. We have
passed through this revolution, and it may be that the extension of these powers to industrial bodies will bring about revolutionary changes in this country which we do not clearly envisage in passing this Measure.

2.31 p.m.

Mr. PETHERICK: I do not often agree with a speaker from the Liberal Benches, but in this case I think that I can say that I do agree with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. R. T. Evans). I do not share the enthusiasm for planning of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Captain Heilgers); some of us would prefer to call it plotting. I also have a great objection, wherever it is possible to avoid them, to the setting up of development boards as a general rule. I remember my right hon. Friend the Minister, when discussing the Order under the Herring Industry Act, asserting that we were not to consider that he set up boards because he liked them, but because he saw no alternative. In certain cases, such as the Bacon and Pig Boards, frankly, I see no alternative either, and I believe that the majority of the House feel as I do. In each case where a measure of control of this nature is contemplated we should look upon the pros and cons with a very keen eye. I certainly do not believe in a general Bill enabling this to be done. All schemes should be definitely ad hoc, but in this particular case it is ad hog, but that does not matter. I wish to make one or two slight criticisms of the proposals in this scheme. I hope that when schemes are brought out in this particular form we can have marginal paragraphs and an index. Here we have a long scheme containing 60 paragraphs and about 18 pages, and it would be of great assistance to the House no doubt if it were possible to have marginal paragraphs and an index. Otherwise, it is almost a model of drafting which might very well be imitated in respect of some of the Bills presented to us for passage through the Houses of Parliament.
Clause 24 is a little unfortunate. It says that the minutes and proceedings of the Board are to be open to inspection by any member of the Pigs and Bacon Boards or by any person authorised by those Boards in writing. I believe that
that is going a little too far. It means, practically speaking, that anybody can go to either of those Boards and say, "Please we want to have authority in writing to go and look at the minutes of the Pig Industry Development Board," and it will be very difficult to refuse access to the minutes of the Board. Consequently, it will very often be necessary, after the discussions have proceeded, not to put their findings in the minutes of the Board at all. That would be very unfortunate, because the full discussion and full findings of the Board should appear in the Minute Book.
Paragraph 30 says that the appointed day may not be earlier than the 1st January, 1936. Is there anything to prevent the Board as soon as it is set up granting licences for the erection of new factories before the 1st January, 1936, or have they to wait until that date? May I make one or two suggestions in regard to the three boards, which may be of some value and convenience? Each board is to present an annual report. It will be most helpful to have all the three reports amalgamated in the same volume.
With reference to what the hon. Member for Carmarthen has said, I entirely share his feelings with regard to the regional aspect of this problem. I am very much afraid that the Development Board, when it is set up, may examine the number of factories there are in the country as a whole and say: "We have enough factories," entirely regardless of whether in certain areas where a large number of pigs are produced there is or is not a factory. I do not claim to represent so many pigs, if I may put it that way, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman for Bury St. Edmunds, but Cornwall contains about one-third the largest pig population in the country. We have this year 120,000 contract pigs but we have only three very small factories. Devonshire has 78,000 pigs and about 21 factories. When you come to Staffordshire you find that although it has only 26,000 pigs there are 60 factories. Therefore, Staffordshire produces one-quarter the number of pigs that Cornwall produces and has 20 times the number of factories.
It is a great disadvantage for the Cornish and some of the Welsh farmers to send their pigs to the Midlands, at very considerable expense and at a great loss
of weight. I believe that it is estimated that a pig loses on being sent from Cornwall or Devonshire to the Midlands about 5 lbs. in weight. Obviously, that must be a considerable burden on the farmer, who does not get his full price. I hope, therefore, that when the Board is set up it will take a reasonable view of geographical requirements in the various counties, particularly the pig producing areas. In conclusion, I hope that the Board will be set up at the earliest possible moment and that it will be able to engage in its functions as soon as possible. I thank the Minister very much for all that he has done in forwarding the setting up of the Board, which is really needed to co-ordinate the efforts of the two boards which already exist.

2.38 p.m.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I am one of those who until half-an-hour ago had never voted on any aspect of the agricultural marketing schemes. I do not like this scheme, I have never liked it and I do not think I am ever likely to like it. If I had the power to amend this proposal I would substitute for the Development control board, or whatever it is called, the Control Board in Victoria Street which deals with lunatics, because I think that would be an admirable body to deal with a scheme of this kind. This is one of the first definite occasions that this House has been faced with the fact that we are seeking to make an industry a closed industry. This scheme contains fundamentally, except that it is ad hoc instead of general, the sort of proposal advocated in this House by the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Macmillan). I do not believe that the prosperity of this country in the past was built up on the principle of saying: "You shall not enter this industry unless somebody already in it gives permission." This is going to be one of the challenging issues of our politics in the future. I am definitely opposed to these schemes of control. If I were a Socialist I should vote for all of them, because it is going to put the Socialists in a very convenient position later on to take over the controlled industry and turn it into a purely socialised industry.
This scheme does not meet with any undue enthusiasm among those for whom it is intended. I put on the Order Paper
to-day three questions to the Minister of Agriculture. Friday is not a usual day for answers, but the Minister was good enough to send me written answers, and I find that in this country there are 145,185 registered producers of pigs, of whom 63 voted in favour of the scheme and 16 against. Sixty-three, not 63,000! That is democracy up to date.

Mr. ELLIOT: There was no challenge of a formal vote, and therefore it is to be assumed that the opinion was unanimous. Anyone who had desired to do so could have challenged a formal vote and it would then have been held. As no formal vote was taken it is unfair for the hon. Member to suggest that this matter was decided by a vote of 63 to 16.

Mr. WILLIAMS: There are 145,000 registered pig producers. They had a meeting somewhere in London in a hall that would not have held one per cent. of the total number if they had turned up. They were not given a normal opportunity of having the scheme explained to them, and only 79 persons—

Mr. ELLIOT: Does the hon. Member suggest, for instance, that when the Great Western Railway Company, or the London Midland and Scottish Railway Company holds its annual meeting that all the shareholders attend?

Mr. WILLIAMS: This was not an annual meeting. It was the inauguration of a new company. It is the subscription of the original capital, and there were only 79 persons out of 145,000 who took any part in the inauguration of the scheme. That does not indicate enormous enthusiasm.

Mr. ELLIOT: I do not wish to interrupt, but it is misrepresenting the position to say that only 79 persons took any part in the inauguration of the scheme. The scheme was the result of the efforts of the two bodies that had canvassed the matter most thoroughly, and the people concerned had had every opportunity through their representative organisations of examining the scheme. The fact that they did not turn up to vote against it, is, I submit, to be regarded as an indication of their being satisfied with the scheme as it had been explained to them.

Mr. WILLIAMS: If there are 145,000 pig producers, a lot of them do not belong to any organisation, and they are not going to incur the expense of a journey up to London. They have no representatives. They do not belong to the National Farmers' Union.

Mr. ELLIOT: Every one of the registered producers belongs to the scheme.

Mr. WILLIAMS: The right hon. Gentleman said that they were represented at the meeting. If they were represented, they must have delegated somebody to represent them. They do that by the usual practice through membership of some organisation. Obviously, the great mass of them took no part, consciously or otherwise, in this scheme. They said to themselves about the scheme: "Well, this country is going to be regimented, so it does not matter what I think." Let me turn now to those who are better organised to do these things. There is the Registered Bacon Curers organisation. There are only 627 of them. They are the big noises. They are the people who buy the pigs and turn them into bacon. They are the really important people, and a journey up to London and a night spent in London would not dissuade them from turning up at the meeting. I find that of them 53 were in favour and 45 against the scheme, which is to close the industry. Then they had a vote. A formal vote was taken.
I do not understand this voting. There are only 627 of them, but the number voting in favour was 2,242 with 536 against. I suppose they said "hands up," and all the pigs put up four legs. There must, of course, be some explanation of this. Probably they voted on a quota basis but, at any rate, it is not very intelligent. And this is how democracy develops! Everyone has such a lot of votes that they do not register a single one, except the bacon curers, who vote early and often apparently. However, there is a certain amount of perturbation among some of my constituents who are afraid that pickled pork is going to be treated as bacon. Of course, pickled pork is not the same thing as bacon. Imagine the prospect of the great political issue which may be raised at the next election, "Will you vote for the policy that pickled pork
shall not be regarded as bacon?" I understand that the pickling of pork is something which you can do without going in for mass production, whereas the production of bacon, to be successful and economic, must be done on a mass scale. I am told that a large number of ordinary butchers do a certain amount of pickling pork at the proper season of the year, and that they are rather perturbed with the prospect of having to get a licence. The prospect is not enhanced by the fact that a licence may be refused on the ground:
That the production of bacon in the premises in question appears to the Development Board not to be required having regard to the existing or prospective consumption and the existing or prospective sources of supply of bacon, whether produced in Great Britain or elsewhere.
Therefore, whenever an ordinary butcher wants to do a bit of pork pickling he will solemnly have to make his application to the Development Board. There will no doubt be a large procession of stout and handsome gentlemen, all belonging to the bacon section of the industry, applying for pickling permits. The queue will be so extensive that the police will have to be on duty to regulate the traffic so that we shall be able to approach this House in accordance with the terms of the Sessional Order. But I hope that the Government now will give up this tariff dodging, all these elaborate boards which do not organise anything. They have not saved a single penny piece of the stretch between wholesale and retail prices. They are an addition, indeed, to the overhead costs of all the branches of the agricultural industry to which they have been applied, and I hope the time will soon come when we shall realise the folly of the Argentine trade agreement and the Danish trade agreement and that in our Empire trade agreements we shall abandon unrestricted entry in favour of preference, so that in 1936 our hands will be free to put this on a proper protection basis without the necessity of these totally unnecessary boards, which spend all their time in interfering with the people in their daily business.

Question put.

The House divided: Ayes, 108; Noes 35.

Division No. 302.]
AYES.
[2.40 p.m.


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Goldie, Noel B.
Percy, Lord Eustace


Albery, Irving James
Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)
Petherick, M.


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Power, Sir John Cecil


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Aske, Sir Robert William
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Ralkes, Henry V. A. M.


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)


Blindell, James
Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)
Remer, John R.


Bossom, A. C.
Horsbrugh, Florence
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.


Bower, Commander Robert Tatton
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Rickards, George William


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas


Broadbent, Colonel John
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Runge, Norah Cecil


Brown, Rt. Hon. Ernest (Leith)
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Russell, R. J. (Eddlsbury)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y)
Kirkpatrick, William M.
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univ.)
Samuel, M. R. A. (W'ds'wth, Putney).


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Leckie, J. A.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Burnett, John George
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Unv., Belfast)


Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Levy, Thomas
Somervell, Sir Donald


Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)
Lindsay, Kenneth (Kilmarnock)
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Llewellin, Major John J.
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Clarry, Reginald George
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Bassetlaw)
Storey, Samuel


Conant, R. J. E.
McKeag, William
Strauss, Edward A.


Cooke, Douglas
McLean, Major Sir Alan
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Copeland, Ida
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Magnay, Thomas
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Cross, R. H.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Wallace, Sir John (Dunfermline)


Crossley, A. C.
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Watt, Major George Steven H.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Mellor, Sir J. S. P.
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Munro, Patrick
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Hertf'd)


Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.



Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES—


Fraser, Captain Sir Ian
Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)
Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward


Fuller, Captain A. G.
North, Edward T.
and Sir Walter Womersley.


Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Penny, Sir George





NOES.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Parkinson, John Allen


Atholl, Duchess of
Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W. Riding)
Rathbone, Eleanor


Attlee, Rt. Hon. Clement R.
Groves, Thomas E.
Rea, Sir Walter


Banfield, John William
Grundy, Thomas W.
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Bernays, Robert
Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Healy, Cahir
Thorne, William James


Buchanan, George
Janner, Barnett
Tinker, John Joseph


Daggar, George
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Lunn, William
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Dobbie, William
McEntee, Valentine L.



Edwards, Sir Charles
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)
Mr. John and Mr. Paling.


Gardner, Benjamin Walter
Owen, Major Goronwy

Resolved,
That the Bacon Development Scheme, 1935, made under the Agricultural Marketing Act, 1933, a draft of which was presented to this House on the 22nd day of July, 1935, be approved.

Orders of the Day — MONEY PAYMENTS (JUSTICES PROCEDURE) BILL [Lords].

Order for Second Reading read.

2.57 p.m.

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Simon): I beg to move "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This is a Bill which has been brought from the House of Lords, where it went
through all stages without amendment. I hope that it may also receive unanimous approval in this House, but it will be for the convenience of the House if I state shortly what is the situation with which it deals and how the Bill proposes to deal with it. I would invite the attention of the House to two or three remarkable figures in the statistics of imprisonment. Of course, we have reduced the population of our prisons, I am glad to think, very considerably, but the matter now stands thus: There are about 53,000 cases of imprisonment in a year, and of those 53,000 cases more than one-third are due to imprisonment for failure to pay either a fine which has been imposed on conviction for some offence or some other money payment
ordered by a court of summary jurisdiction. More than one-third of the cases arise in that way. Of course that is not the same thing as saying that at any given moment one-third of the people in prison are imprisoned for that reason, but still, even if you were to take the ordinary daily average, there are very substantial numbers, something like 500 people every day, who are in prison not because any court has deliberately decided after trial that they ought to go to prison, but because they were fined with an alternative of imprisonment—five shillings or a week, 30 shillings or a month, or whatever it may be—and they have not paid the fine.
That situation is one which well deserves the attention of Parliament. It would be a mistake to suppose that these figures, large as they are, mean that, generally speaking, fines which are imposed are not paid. Over 97 per cent. of the fines imposed by courts of summary jurisdiction are paid, but none the less the remaining three per cent., or something less, account for a very large number of cases. Let me analyse the figures still further. Over 11,000 people are sent to prison annually for failure to pay fines; something like 3,600 for failure to pay under wife maintenance orders, 2,400 for failure to pay under affiliation orders, and 3,000 for failure to pay rates. It is that situation which I ask the House to consider when deciding whether they will approve the principle of this Bill.
A Departmental Committee under the chairmanship of Sir John Fischer Williams was set up by my predecessor to review the existing law relating to the enforcement of orders made by courts of summary jurisdiction for the payment of fines and other sums of money, and that Committee made a unanimous report which is available to hon. Members in the Vote Office. It reported in June of last year. The Bill includes a number of the recommendations made by that Committee—not all of them, because the report also included some other recommendations which undoubtedly might involve more controversy. I am not in the least pronouncing any opinion against any of those recommendations, but I think they will have to wait for another occasion. The principle which we seek to apply in this Bill is to be stated as
follows: What is the real mischief of the present system? It may be put thus: Justices who are experienced and humane and considerate men and women have before them vast numbers of cases of petty offences which they think ought to be punished by fine, and they impose a fine, but even though in many cases there is time given to pay the fine, the fine is accompanied, as the law allows, with a provision that if the fine is not paid within the time allowed imprisonment on a certain scale will be imposed instead. From that moment no further consideration is given to the individual case by the Court, so that if the convicted person does not pay the fine the imprisonment which follows as an alternative is imposed almost automatically by the issue of a warrant, which does not involve an opportunity for reconsidering the merits of the case or learning from the convicted person what are the circumstances which have resulted in non-payment of the fine.
It seems to me that that is not a right system at all. These people if they go to prison in such circumstances do not go to prison because the Court has decided that imprisonment is the proper punishment, for the Court has come to the conclusion that the proper punishment is a fine. They go to prison notwithstanding that the Court thinks that they ought to be fined, simply because they have not succeeded in paying the fine, and there is no further investigation as to what the explanation of that may be. The principle of the Bill is that before an order for imprisonment is made against anyone who has been sentenced to pay a fine there must be by the magistrate an examination of the specific case, for the purpose of ascertaining and deciding what is the fair thing to do. If it is ascertained that the explanation for failure to pay the fine is a good one, then of course imprisonment ought not automatically to follow, though I do not stand here and say that in no circumstances shall a man be sent to prison because he refuses to pay a fine. If a man has been properly fined, if he is able to pay the fine and if he will not pay the fine, there is nothing for it but to send him to prison.
On the other hand, there may be cases in which owing to supervening misfortune, or owing to the inability of the
person concerned to deal with the matter by instalments or the like, the fine has not been paid and it does not seem right that the law should remain in such a position that no opportunity is given for the consideration of the circumstances of the specific case. The Bill also deals with payments ordered to be made under affiliation orders, and orders to pay rates with the alternative of imprisonment. There the House will see that provision is made for an examination into the circumstances of the case before imprisonment takes place. If it is the view of the magistrate that the explanation of non-payment has nothing to do with the wilful refusal or culpable neglect of the person involved, imprisonment cannot take place.
I shall possibly save time and shorten the Debate if I ask hon. Members to go through the Bill with me while I call attention briefly to its main provisions. The chief provision as regards fines will be found in Clause 1. As hon. Members will see, that Clause does not remove all discretion from the justices, but it provides that, except for special reasons stated at the time, the court is not, at the time of adjudication, to impose on a person fined a period of imprisonment in default of payment, and that a warrant for commitment in respect of default is not to be issued unless on a subsequent occasion the competent court has made inquiries as to his means in his presence. How much that will reduce the present number of cases of imprisonment is a matter of estimate but I shall be disappointed if the reform does not produce substantial results in accordance with the plain principles of justice. I feel sure that at least a proportion of the 11,000 people who go to prison every year for non-payment of fines would not have been sent to prison if, as will be necessary under this Bill, the magistrate had had specifically before him the question of whether imprisonment was the proper course, and if the history of the reasons why the fine had not been paid was put before him for consideration.
Clauses 2 and 3 deal with minor matters of machinery. Clause 2 is to enable examination as to a defaulter's means to be conducted in his own district. I give a simple illustration. Suppose that a man who, ordinarily, resides in the North of England is fined by a
court of summary jurisdiction in London for a motoring offence and is given time to pay—say, a week. If there has to be a further examination of the man to determine whether he ought to go to prison for his failure to pay the fine, it would be inconvenient to bring him back to London. Moreover the right place in which to inquire into his means and circumstances is the place where he lives. Clause 3 gives statutory effect to what is already a common practice, namely, the sending of notifications to persons who are fined of the order of the court. Many cases arise where a man is fined in his absence and in some cases he may not actually know, officially, what has happened to him. It is desirable to have it established that if a man is fined in his absence, he should have a communication sent him informing him of what has happened.
Clause 4 gives power to order the detention of a person for one night in a police station. At present a court has power to order detention for one day in the precincts of the court, but this power can only be exercised at the time of conviction, and, therefore, it would not be applicable to the case where time is allowed for the payment of a fine, as it usually is. It may be that there will not be many occasions for operating the provisions of Clause 4, but I think it will be useful for dealing with the case, it may be the exceptional case, where a small fine has been imposed and has not been paid and it is necessary to do something, though nothing very drastic, to show that offences against the law will be followed by punishment.
Clause 5 is a more important provision. It extends to adults the existing power of the courts to use, as they already do in the case of young persons under 21, the method of supervision. Unfortunately, not much use has been made of this power as yet, but it is hoped that increasing use will be made of it in the future, especially as the probation service, which I regard as one of the most useful services, becomes strengthened. The provisions of this Clause exactly correspond to the provisions in Section 1 (3) of the Criminal Justice Administration Act, 1914, which is the existing provision as to the use of supervision in, the case of young persons. The comment was made to me by a Member of the
House, and I therefore deal with it, that Clause 5 does not say what kind of person is to exercise supervision. The obvious person to exercise the power of supervision in the ordinary case is the probation officer, but still the Departmental Committee contemplated that there might be cases where the officer of the court charged with official responsibility for supervision might enlist the help of voluntary workers.
The anxiety which was expressed to me was whether Clause 5 might be so used as to put the supervision in the hands of the employer of the individual concerned. I agree that that would be most undesirable, and I think the best way to deal with it would be to allow the Home Office to do what it is constantly doing. We are always sending round, with the explanation of a new Act of Parliament of this sort, comments and suggestions, and I shall certainly make it my business to make sure that that is not at all what is contemplated. Under the existing law applying to young persons, the Home Office does not know of a single case in which this has been done. Clause 6 deals also with the question of supervision and prohibits the committal of young persons under the age of 21 to prison for failure to pay fines unless the method of supervision has been tried or there is some special reason, which must be stated in the warrant, for not following this course. It is certain that the judgment of the House of Commons will approve of a provision of that kind. Clause 7 is a small Amendment, which I will not deal with now. So much for the fines part of the Bill.
Then I must call attention to Clauses 8 and 9, which deal with wife maintenance and affiliation orders. They give effect to the principles which I sketched out a few moments ago. In future, if this Bill becomes law, it will be necessary for magistrates, before committing a person to prison for the non-payment of moneys under orders of this kind, to make inquiry as to the defendant's means. Care has been taken to avoid placing on the plaintiff, the complaining wife or mother, the onus of proving the means of the defendant, and in very many cases the woman certainly would not be able to, do that. She must not be required to do it, but the Clause provides that, if the justices are of opinion that the
failure of the defendant to pay was not due either to his wilful refusal or to his culpable neglect, he is not to be committed to prison. It appears to me to be quite right that whatever the appropriate process in such eases, it cannot assist anybody, and indeed it might do very much the opposite, if we said that gaol was the place for him. The Clause also makes other amendments in the law, which are expected to reduce the number of cases in which committals to prison may become necessary.
Lastly, Clause 10 deals with rate cases. The ordinary process is that on a summons for the payment of rates an order is made for payment, but before committal to prison an effort is made to raise the necessary money by a distress warrant. If the reply to the distress warrant is that there are not sufficient goods to produce the money, there is, as the law stands at present, an automatic warrant which will commit the defaulting person to prison. If sending people to prison will make them pay their rates, they should be sent to prison in proper cases, but, unless the situation is one in which there has been wilful refusal or culpable neglect, there should not be committal to prison. Therefore, Clause 10 provides in a similar way to Clause 8 that these conditions have to be satisfied. The justices will now be required in every case of default in the payment of rates to consider whether default is due to wilful refusal of culpable neglect, and, if they come to the conclusion that the defaulter is not to blame for his failure to pay, they will be prevented by this Clause from committing him to prison. It will be for the justices, after considering the defaulter's circumstances, to come to their own conclusion, and the Clause does not place on the rating authority any onus of proving culpability. The remaining Clauses deal with minor and consequential matters.
I submit this Bill with some confidence to the House. I think that it represents what is an overdue reform, and I hope that it may be received with general approval. I should not like to sit down without acknowledging how much is due to the public-spirited interest which has been taken in the Bill by, among others, Lord Arnold in the House of Lords, and also by Lord Snell, who was largely instrumental in setting up the original Committee. The Bill is not a party
matter at all. We are all co-operating to make the law of our country as good as we can. This Bill will apply to England and Wales. The question whether in Scotland a man prefers to go to prison or pay a sum of money is one that only Scotsmen can answer.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Happily we have not sent men to prison.

Sir J. SIMON: When I introduced the Home Office Estimates the other day I made a few remarks about prisons and ventured to say that the most beneficent prison reform in our generation had been the reduction in the number of persons sent to prison. Whatever may be said for our penal methods when we are dealing with real criminals and endeavouring to suppress dangerous crime, it does appear to me high time that we should stop what is a very old-established practice which, I am convinced, has caused people in many cases almost automatically to find themselves inside a prison without proper consideration being given at the time to the question whether there was a good and sufficient explanation why they did not pay their fines.

3.18 p.m.

Mr. LANSBURY: My hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) was to have been here to say our say on this Bill for it is largely a measure for hon. Members in the legal profession to determine how it will work. In his absence, however, I will deal with the matter. The principle of the Bill is one which Lord Snell and Lord Arnold have done their best with great success to persuade my friends to accept, and we are deeply grateful to the right hon. Gentleman and his Department for bringing the Bill forward. We think that it will do a great deal of good to people who are often simply unfortunate instead of being guilty of any particular crime. When the Poplar councillors went to prison, not for not paying their rates but for not making the rates, we came into contact during that six weeks with a number of people who were in prison with us for this type of default, and as a Justice of the Peace in London I have also had experience of people sent to prison for non-payment of rates or fines, and I have often thought that if Charles Dickens could come back he would be able to write some very painful stories
in connection with imprisonment for debt even now. Whatever faults legal minds may find in the administrative methods proposed, the principle of the Bill, which is that a person who is unable to pay shall not be sent to prison, is an excellent one, and one which I hope the House will accept.
The punishment of crime is always a very difficult problem. In thinking over the cases of some highly placed persons who have been sent to prison, while I have no sympathy with them as regards what they have done I very often feel that the punishment inflicted on them did not really fit the crime. I am quite certain that the class of people to whom this Bill will apply ought not to be sent to prison, and I hope the day will come when the others, who do not belong to that class, will be treated in a rather more humane manner than many of them are treated at present. In my view offences against property are not suitably dealt with by imprisonment. Often I feel that we are a bit more careful to punish people for offences against property—and money—rather more heavily than other offences which, if they are to be punished, deserve more punishment. I make these few remarks in order to put the layman's view as held among my friends. I did not know that it was to be my job to speak on this subject this afternoon, but my hon. and learned Friend has had to go away—I do not think he is earning his living today—on some other business, and I have had to take his place. I have great pleasure in supporting the Bill.

3.24 p.m.

Mr. MALLALIEU: May I, in two words, say how very much we on these benches welcome this Bill and congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the very lucid explanation which he gave of it, which will, I feel sure, prove of very great value to those who have to administer its provisions in the courts of law? It would be no great exaggeration to say that this is a piece of social amelioration of the very greatest importance—an unostentatious piece of social amelioration, one might say—on which we ought all to congratulate the Government most heartily. I have no sympathy at all with those who can pay the sums which they are directed to pay under affiliation orders or similar orders and do not pay. Still
less have I any sympathy with those who do not pay their rates when they are ordered to do so, except perhaps at certain periods of the year when those demands come round to myself. That is only a temporary matter. Generally speaking, those who are ordered to pay these sums ought to be made to do so. I entirely agree that a great deal of imprisonment can easily be avoided, and it will be avoided by some such machinery as that which is provided in the Bill. I have great pleasure in congratulating the right hon. Gentleman and the Government upon having found time to bring this Measure before the House.

3.26 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir ARNOLD WILSON: I hope I shall not be considered to be ungracious if I urge the right hon. Gentleman not to be weary in well doing. The Bill does not deal, for instance, with imprisonment for debt incurred as a consequence of having obtained on credit goods; it does not deal so far as Clause 15 (b) is concerned, with maintenance orders. Such orders can only be varied by the court which made them. If an order is made in Carlisle, only Carlisle can vary or discharge it. The Bill, in fact, deals with fines and not with maintenance orders. Another serious difficulty occurs when parties are separated by considerable geographical distances. An order is in force in London and the husband or father is in Newcastle. The man cannot come to London to have his pockets searched, and, if the court put the police to the trouble of bringing him by warrant to the court, how is the London court to check the statement about his means?
The report used strong language in this matter. It says:
It is clearly better that a default should be dealt with in the locality of the defender's residence, where his means and circumstances can be ascertained. An Amendment of the law is in our opinion imperative.
The word "imperative" is not used loosely by Sir John Fischer Williams; yet that paragraph seems to have been ignored by the right hon. Gentleman on the grounds, I assume, that it would be controversial to include such an Amendment. The Bill has been so warmly welcomed in this House and throughout the country, as well as in another place,
that I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be encouraged to carry it a little further and to provide that maintenance orders can be dealt with in the same way as fines.
The Bill contains no provisions for varying orders for maintenance of affiliation for a definite and limited time. When a man proves that he is unemployed the order has to be reduced permanently, and it cannot be varied when the man secures employment afresh or when the wife finds herself in far better financial circumstances than she was when the order was made. Cases frequently arise. They arose when the dole was reduced; there was no provision for reducing the maintenance orders. When the dole was restored there was again no provision for increasing the amount that the husband or the wife had to pay. The Bill gives no power to courts to vary the amount of an order when a summons for arrears is before it. In paragraph 148 the report of the Committee strongly recommends it. The Bill does not deal with the evidence that might be given in open court by representatives of the public assistance committee or by probation officers.
On the Home Office Debate, the right hon. Gentleman said, if I remember aright, that the modification of the rules of evidence in the case of children's courts generally had been of the very greatest value in assuring that justice had been done. There is an important modification in Clause 12 providing that statements of employers as to wages may be accepted in court as primâ facie evidence. I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman might seriously consider extending that, and allowing statements made by officials of public assistance committees, employment exchange officials, or probation officers, which are technically hearsay, to be accepted in court as primâ facie evidence. It would, I think, greatly assist in doing justice. Some courts do it already, but these unofficial evasions of the law of evidence are undesirable until they have been authorised by Statute.
Then there is the difficult question of orders under the Guardianship of Infants Act. Paragraph 152 of the Report mentions the anomaly whereby a mother who has an order for her children under the
Guardianship of Infants Act has far greater difficulty in obtaining her order than she would have had under the Married Women's Act. Surely it is possible in a Bill like this, which is entirely uncontroversial and is welcomed in all quarters of the House, to include that provision also. Clause 8 which from many points of view may be regarded as contentious, has been accepted without any comment, and I heartily welcome it. The right hon. Gentleman has represented this Bill as being half a loaf; I believe that the House would willingly give him the whole loaf, and butter as well, if he implements a few more of the Committee's recommendations, excepting, I admit, those which refer to the attachment of pensions, a question which involves considerations far wider than the Bill itself, and certainly require more consideration.
The final Clause of the Bill states that it is not to come into force until the 1st January, but the Home Secretary has not mentioned why it should be necessary that this uncontentious and admirable Bill should not come into operation for another six months. Could we not have it before, or could not some Clause be inserted saying that, if justices take action on the lines of the Bill, once it has received the Royal Assent, they at least will not be held to have transgressed the law?

Sir J. SIMON: If my hon. and gallant Friend will allow me to interrupt him on that point, I was careful to have inquiries made as to the date at which the Bill could be brought into operation, and I share his view that it should be brought into operation soon. It is, however, absolutely necessary that the whole scheme of the Bill, and the detailed machinery, which does not appear in the Bill itself, should not only be prepared, but should be well known throughout the country. Otherwise we should get into inextricable confusion. I am advised that the date which has been fixed is really the earliest date that in all the circumstances would be practicable. I agree with my hon. and gallant Friend that it should be possible in the meantime at least to prepare the way, and I propose to send a communication to the different benches and clerks to magistrates, in order that as far as possible their existing
practice should be framed in view of the considerations which are causing Parliament to carry this Bill.

Sir A. WILSON: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman, and I accept his assurance without the smallest hesitation or doubt. A circular from the Home Office such as he suggests will unquestionably have almost as great an effect as the Act itself. He clearly indicated in his opening speech that more has to be done, and I beg him, before we pass the Bill, to give us some definite assurance that this is a mere instalment of what we may hope for from the Home Office and from his own efforts before long. A tremendous amount of consolidation and amendment of the law is required, in regard, for example, to the Summary Jurisdiction Acts and the Married Women's Acts, all of which will have an immediate effect upon the imprisonment of persons for offences against the law. A vast field of legal reform is open to the Home Office, and I hope that this is a mere instalment of what we may shortly have. If the Home Secretary could give some assurance that the remaining recommendations of Sir John Fischer Williams's Committee, all of which were unanimous and well-weighed, will be given effect to by legislation at the earliest possible moment—if not this Session, at least next Session, and, if not by amendment of this Bill, in some other manner—it would be a real encouragement to that great body of men and women outside the House who have followed the proceedings on this Bill with hope mingled with anxiety. In many ways this is the most important Bill from the point of view of the real man in the street, that we have had before us this Session.

3.35 p.m.

Miss RATHBONE: I do not want to oppose the Bill, but I cannot let it go without a strong protest as regards not what is in it but what is not in it. I, too, welcome nearly everything that is in it, but it is a remarkable fact that, if you take the Report of the Departmental Committee on which it is based, the Bill has singled out practically every recommendation which tends to make things easier, rightly, for the debtor, other than the obstinate and contumacious debtor, and to make things easier for the State, which wishes to be saved the unnecessary
expense of keeping the man in prison and wishes to make it easier to collect its debt from him. It has omitted every single recommendation which safeguards the rights and interests of the unfortunate woman who represents the creditor in a very large proportion of these cases.
The figures given by the Committee show that about 10,000 of the imprisonments for debt every year are those of men with arrears either of maintenance or affiliation orders—about 4,000 for maintenance and 6,000 for affiliation orders. It further shows that the estimated number of affiliation and maintenance orders in force at any one time is probably round about 94,000, and it calculates that no fewer than seven per cent. of maintenance orders lead to imprisonment and 5.8 per cent. of affiliation orders. There are no statistics, I believe, which show how many maintenance and affiliation orders are totally unenforced, or imperfectly enforced although they do not lead to imprisonment, but the number must be several times greater than the enforced orders which lead to imprisonment because in most well-conducted courts they do not apparently, as is the case in some, automatically order a man to prison if he fails to pay.
It is clear that it is only in a small percentage of cases that the woman takes the necessary steps which will lead to the man being sent to prison. Loyalty often survives in these hardly-treated women and, naturally, they do not want the man sent to prison because imprisonment may wipe out the arrears and, in any case, it would prevent the man having any chance of paying while in prison. Quite rightly, the Departmental Committee recognised the danger that, if it was going to make things easier for the debtor and did not at the same time safeguard the wife or the unmarried mother, it might even worsen the position of these hardly-treated women and, therefore, they put forward a number of recommendations. The hon. and gallant Gentleman who spoke last has enumerated some of them. The question is why have none of them been embodied. From what I have gathered privately from the Home Secretary, there are two reasons. One is that the Government aimed as far as possible at keeping this a non-controversial
Bill, and the other one that it wished to preserve a certain unity of purpose that the Bill should deal with things that mainly concerned the question of reinforcement of the debt. I would suggest that the latter reason is, perhaps, not a very strong one, because the recommendations with regard to the safeguarding of the wife and mother in these cases were ancillary to their recommendations affecting imprisonment for debt. It is difficult to see why they could not have embodied them at the same time, or, if that were not possible, why the Government did not bring forward two Bills.
I venture to think that the stronger reason is that they wished to make their Bill non-controversial. I understand that among the recommendations of the Departmental Committee which have not been carried out one of the principal controversial subjects was the recommendation that only in cases of obstinate and contumacious refusal to pay should the court be permitted, at its discretion, to attach wages, and that was objected to by the trade unions and the Labour party. With regard to that, I have only to say that in Scotland, where the attachment of wages is permitted in these cases, the number of men sent to prison under wife maintenance or affiliation orders is almost negligible compared with orders in this country, and the Departmental Committee had expert evidence that that was due, partly it is true, to provisions for dealing with cases before being sent to prison, but also to two other features which exist in Scotland, but do not exist in this country—the right to attach wages if the man refuses to pay, and imprisonment there does not quite wipe out the debt. I think that is an indication of what we are losing in this Bill, with regard to the safeguarding of the unfortunate married woman or unmarried mother by not including the attachment of wages.
But let us assume that the Government could not tackle the trade unions and overcome their opposition, Might they then not have brought in some of the provisions not open to that objection? Let me single out one recommendation which has not been attended to, and which seems to me peculiarly strange that the Government should have omitted. The House will see that one Clause of the
Bill lays it down that if the court considers it easier in the case of a fine that the fine should be collected by a court belonging to some other area if the debtor is living there, it should transfer the order to the other area. The Departmental Committee made a closely analogous recommendation with regard to the maintenance order, that, if the man was resident elsewhere, the duty of seeing that the order was carried out should be transferred to the court in the place of the man's residence. Why cannot the Government do this? It is a very modest provision. I cannot imagine it to be very controversial. I suppose it would be possible, by introducing a large number of Amendments to the Bill, to block it, but I do not believe in doing that.
It has been represented that this Bill will save many men from being sent to prison unnecessarily, but I would add my voice to the plea put forward by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Hitchin (Sir A. Wilson), that the Government will really consider that they owe a debt of honour to the women whose position they are doing nothing to remedy by this Bill but something possibly to worsen it, and that they will go into the whole question of the other recommendations of the Departmental Committee at the earliest possible date and introduce a measure to include those recommendations and possibly others. There are many long delayed and much needed reforms required in regard to the position of the separated wife and the unmarried mother.
May I make an appeal also to the Labour party. The record of the Labour party in this matter is not too good. When we think of the eloquence poured out in this House every time any question comes up which touches the interests of the wage-earner, we realise how little attention is directed comparatively to the interests of women who are not remunerated workers or members of trades unions, but who bring children into the world and bring them up in the service of the State. Where they happen to be unhappily married and have to secure a separation from their husbands, they are, of all classes, the most neglected. Often nothing is done to see that the order of the court is carried out. I am sure the leader of the Opposition, who in the past has shown himself the good friend of many women's causes, cannot be unsympathetic
to this class, and I appeal to him and to the Labour party to do what they can to secure further legislation to fill up the gaps which this valuable Bill has left.

3.43 p.m.

Mr. JANNER: There is a point which I should like the right hon. Gentleman to consider if he has not already done so. Everybody will welcome the Bill. I had occasion to raise the question in 1932, and I would refer to a set of figures which I quoted at that time. In 1930 there were 12,497 persons sent to prison in default of payment of fines, 483 young persons under 11 years of age, 2,031 sent to prison because they did not pay their local rates, and 6,778 sent to prison in default of payment of arrears on orders for maintenance and on bastardy orders. If the figures given to-day are compared with those figures, hon. Members will see that the numbers are increasing to a large extent, and that the matter is one of immediate importance. I hope that when the right hon. Gentleman sends his recommendation to the justices he will see that the discretionary power already provided in the Act is properly exercised.
There are many persons being sent to prison for non-payment of rates and in default of payment on these orders who ought never to be in prison and who have no opportunity at all of retrieving their position. I hope that he will be able to see his way to get the machinery working rapidly and will be able to introduce this Measure before 1st January. I implore him, on behalf of large sections of people, to put this machinery into working order, and the Act into force as soon as possible. Unfortunately, magistrates do not realise these things. They are so accustomed to dealing with cases that they allow people to be sent to prison without realising what it really means. They send them automatically, and the poor fellows who have no opportunity of earning a livelihood find themselves behind prison walls when they ought not to be sent to prison. I am anxious for the Bill to be passed, and I wish to bring these matters to the attention of the Minister.

Mrs. COPELAND: I welcome the passage of this Bin and wish to congratulate
the Minister and his department on the work he has done in connection with it. He said just now that he thought it would be of some use. I can assure him that it will be of the greatest possible use in one sad case in my constituency where a man has been put into prison 11 times. This prevents him obtaining work. He cannot pay under a maintenance order, and he is in consequence again put into prison. Things thus go from bad to worse. I can assure the Minister, therefore, that the work that he has done in connection with this Bill will be of great benefit.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Monday next.—[Major G. Davies.]

Orders of the Day — PENSIONS (GOVERNORS OF DOMINIONS, ETC.) [MONEY].

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 69.

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That it is expedient to amend the Pensions (Governors of Dominions, etc.) Acts, 1911 and 1929, by making provision—

(1) with respect to the nature and period of service qualifying persons for the grant of pensions under section one of the Pensions (Governors of Dominions, etc.) Act, 1911;
(2) with respect to the meaning of the expression service in the permanent Civil Service of the State'; and
(3) for granting in certain circumstances to persons who, after serving as Governors within the meaning of the said Act, have served in the office of Governor-General of the Anglo-Egyptian Sudan, pensions in respect of their service as such Governors and in respect of their employment (if any) in service in the permanent Civil Service of the State within the meaning of the said Acts as amended in pursuance of this Resolution;

and to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of the sums required to defray such expenditure as may be occasioned by the said amendments."—(King's Recommendation Signified)—[Mr. MacDonald.]

3.52 p.m.

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Malcolm MacDonald): In moving the acceptance of the Resolution
I will explain in a few sentences the purpose of our proposal. A great many Governors have had terms of service in the Civil Service. At present as Governors they are entitled to special rates of pension, but they do not qualify for those special rates until they have served for at least 10 years as Governors. That is to say, they do not get any advantage in regard to pensions from their promotion until 10 years have elapsed, whereas if they have refused the offer of a Governorship and in the normal course of events have received promotion in the Civil Service, they have qualified straight away for an advance in pensions. That situation leads in some cases to a risk of men of comparatively poor means having to refuse Governorships because of financial considerations. I should be prepared to explain the point at greater length in other circumstances, but there will be other opportunities for doing that. Perhaps with this short explanation of the main point of our proposal I might ask the Committee to let us have the Resolution.

Mr. LANSBURY: It is obvious that if this Resolution is to get through to-day no one must make a speech. I only wish to say that when the Bill founded on the Resolution is introduced we shall hope to have time to discuss the matter. With that reservation, I support the passing of the Resolution.

Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: I do not think the Committee need hesitate to allow this financial resolution to go through. The Bill that will be founded on it is merely to fill up certain gaps in legislation already passed.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolution to be reported upon Monday next.

Orders of the Day — ASSURANCE COMPANIES (WINDING UP) [MONEY].

Resolution reported,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the Assurance Companies (Winding Up) Act, 1933, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenses to be incurred by the Board of Trade in determining whether an assurance company is insolvent by means of inquiries or of an investigation of the company's affairs by inspectors appointed by the Board.

Resolution agreed to.

Orders of the Day — ASSURANCE COMPANIES (WINDING UP) BILL [Lords].

Considered in Committee.

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1.—(Amendment of 23 & 24 Geo. 5. c. 9.)

Amendments made:

In page 3, line 3, insert:
(5) The expenses of and incidental to an investigation carried out by an inspector appointed under this section shall be defrayed by the Board.

In line 27, insert:
(6) The expenses incurred by the Board under this section shall be defrayed out of moneys provided by Parliament, but any sums paid to the Board under the proviso to the last foregoing subsection shall be appropriated in aid of the moneys voted by Parliament for the salaries and expenses of the Board, and subsection (3) of section thirteen of the Economy (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1926 (which empowers the Treasury to issue out of the Bankruptcy and Companies Winding Up (Fees) Account, in aid of the moneys voted by Parliament for the salaries and expenses of the Board, sums towards meeting the charges estimated by the
Board in respect of salaries and expenses under the Companies Act, 1929, in relation to the winding up of companies in England) shall have effect as if the expenses incurred by the Board under this section were expenses incurred by the Board under the Companies Act, 1929, in relation to the winding up of companies in England."—[Dr. Burgin.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 2 and 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported; as amended, considered; read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 2.

Adjourned at One Minute before Four o'Clock, until Monday next, 29th July.